Disposed¶12

Satendra Pratap v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2025A482/39293/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Satendra Pratap v. State of U.P. and Another, APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 39293 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, decided 14.7.2025 by Deepak Verma, J.; quashing of charge-sheet/cognizance under sections 279, 304-A IPC refused; discharge application liberty with eight-week timeline; no coercive action interim protection; neutral citation 2025:AHC:112522.

What did the court decide?

Quashing refused; liberty granted to file a discharge application before the court below within three weeks, to be decided expeditiously preferably within eight weeks; interim protection that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant till then. ¶12

Satendra Pratap Vs State of U.P. and Another — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112522

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39293 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Satendra Pratap Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bed Kant Mishra,Neetu Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 02.05.2022, cognizance order dated 22.08.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.139573 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.0295 of 2021, under sections 279, 304-A I.P.C., Police Station Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) 6th, Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Instant FIR lodged with malice intention only to harass the applicant. Applicant is owner of the vehicle but incident has not occurred with the vehicle as shown in the FIR. Cognizance and summoning by learned magistrate is without application of judicial mind.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the submission of applicant's counsel and submitted that the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant is not supported by any evidence.

¶10

The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings, charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order of the aforesaid case against the applicant is, hereby, refused.

¶11

However, if applicant moves discharge application before the concerned court below within three weeks from today, the court below shall decide his application in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of discharge application.

¶12

With the above directions, this 482 application is disposed of.

¶13

Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.7.2025 SKD

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satendra Pratap v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra Pratap v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases