Amit Mishra and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Amit Mishra and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; however, applicants permitted to surrender within three weeks and apply for bail (bail application to be decided expeditiously per Satender Kumar Antil), with no coercive action against them for three weeks or till surrender, whichever is earlier.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge-sheet dated 18.09.2023, the summoning order dated 16.01.2024 and the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3455/2024 arising out of Case Crime No.285/2023 should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

Court's answer

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants; the learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicants in the aforesaid case.

Ratio / Principle

All the submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Key takeaways

In light of the cited Apex Court judgments (R.P. Kapur; Manik B.; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.), no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.ratio¶12
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.ratio¶13
If the applicants surrender before the concerned Court below within three weeks from the order and apply for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2021 SCC OnLine SC 922).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:79874 — Criminal Procedure Code, S.482 — Quashing of charge-sheet and summoning order — Disputed questions of fact. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Deepak Verma, J.), by order dated 15.5.2025, dismissed an application under S.482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 18.09.2023, the summoning order dated 16.01.2024 and the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3455/2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Amit Mishra and others) arising out of Case Crime No.285/2023, under Sections 147, 323, 427, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi. Holding that, on the material on record, it could not be said that no offence was made out against the applicants and that the learned Magistrate had rightly summoned them; all submissions advanced at the bar (alleged counterblast FIR, pending civil dispute, mala fide prosecution, self-inflicted injuries, charge-sheet without collected evidence, summoning without judicial mind) related to disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under S.482 Cr.P.C. Relying on R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283), the Court found no ground for interference in exercise of its inherent power. However, it directed that if the applicants surrendered before the court below within three weeks and applied for bail, the bail application be decided expeditiously in accordance with the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2021 SCC OnLine SC 922), and that no coercive action be taken against them for three weeks or till surrender, whichever is earlier.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79874

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34407 of 2024

Applicant :- Amit Mishra And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mrityunjay Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 18.09.2023; summoning order dated 16.01.2024 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No.3455/2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Amit Mishra and others) arising out of Case Crime No.285/2023,Under Sections 147, 323, 427, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi.

Instant F.I.R. is counter blast to the F.I.R. lodged by the applicants against the opposite party no. 2. Civil dispute is pending between the parties. It is next submitted that no offence under the aforesaid sections against the applicants, is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. The injuries are self inflicted and it has been received two months back. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet without collecting evidence and learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind summoned the applicants. He further submits that no prosecution could proceed against the applicants, in such circumstances.

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and submitted that informant has received injuries and medical examination report is supporting the prosecution case. Prima facie, offence is made out against the applicants. It is next submitted that submission raised by counsel for the applicants is based on factual dispute. The trial court has to examine the same. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no power to examine the factual dispute of the matter.

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is

made out against the applicants. The learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicants in the aforesaid case. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, , no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, if the applicants surrender before the concerned Court below within three weeks from today and apply for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another , reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922.

For the period of three weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.

Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Meenu Singh

Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad