Disposed

Mamta Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and and Another

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2024A482/8148/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, declined to entertain an application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It advised the applicant to seek bail and discharge before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of. Liberty granted to applicant to seek bail and discharge before the trial court.

Mamta Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:62765

¶2

Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8148 of 2024 Applicant :- Mamta Tripathi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Akanksha Bajpayee,Harsh Vardhan Kediya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.

¶5

The present application has been filed by the applicant for the following main relief:-

¶6

"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 43792/2024 (State v. Mamta Tripathi & Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 281/2023, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow Central (Commissionerate Lucknow), pending in the Court of the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, under Sections 120-B, 420, and 501 of IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000; and for quashing of the summoning order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, in Case No. 43792/2024 (State v. Mamta Tripathi & Ors.), whereby, the Applicant has been summoned as accused; as well as the chargesheet, bearing no. 01, dated 21.03.2024, under Sections 120-B, 420, 501 IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, arising out of Case Crime No. 0281/2023, registered at Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow Central (Commissionerate Lucknow)."

¶7

For the purposes of entertaining the instant application and granting interim protection, learned counsel for the applicant says that essential ingredients to attract the offence as indicated under Section 420 IPC have not been indicated in the case setup by the prosecution and further against the offence as indicated under Section 501 IPC, a complaint would lie.

¶8

Considered the aforesaid and also the punishment related to Sections 420, 501 IPC & 66 of I.T. Act, 2000 as well as the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51 and also that the applicant can seek discharge indicating therein that the said offence is not made out against the applicant.

¶9

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid as also the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court, in the facts of the case, is not inclined to entertain this application. It is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the applicant to move appropriate application(s) including the application seeking bail and discharge before the trial court, which shall be considered and decided by the court concerned expeditiously as per law.

¶10

Digitally signed by :- Order Date :- 11.9.2024/Arun/ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mamta Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kallu Rawat @ Lallan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Ravindra Kumar Tyagi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Om Prakash and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Anuj Alias Anuj Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Mohd. Faruk Siddiqui @ Mohd. Faruk and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Lko. and Another

Shivsahay and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another