Dismissed¶12

Mahesh Singh @ Mahesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2025A482/44509/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.) dismissed the Section 482 Cr.P.C. application (No. 44509 of 2024) seeking quashing of the cognizance/summoning order dated 11.04.2014 passed by the ACJM, Aligarh in Criminal Case No. 32/12/2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 41 of 2006, Section 308 IPC, Police Station Chandaus, District Aligarh. The Court held the trial court order was supported by evidence and contained no illegality, a prima facie offence was disclosed against the applicants, and the ten-year delay in filing was not substantiated.

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the court below is very much supported by evidence and does not contain any illegality. ¶11

Mahesh Singh @ Mahesh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118365

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44509 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mahesh Singh @ Mahesh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Saroj,Nagendra Bahadur Singh,Ranjit Pratap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 11.04.2014 in Criminal Case No. 32/12/2012 (Old Case No. 105/12/2010) (State versus unknown) arising out of Case Crime No. 41 of 2006 registered under Section 308 I.P.C., Police Station-Chandaus, District-Aligarh.

¶8

Counsel for the applicants submits that the cognizance and summoning order by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh is without application of judicial mind and has been passed in cursory manner. He further submits that the delay in filing the present application has been substantiated in paragraph nos. 22 and 23 of the affidavit filed in support of the application. It is lastly submitted that there was no criminal intent on part of the applicants and that no criminal offence has been committed by the applicants.

¶9

Per contra , learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission made by applicants' counsel and submitted that applicant has challenged the order passed in 2014. Present application has been filed after ten years of cognizance and summoning by trial court. It cannot be presumed that applicant had not been served notice. Vague averments have been made in paragraph nos. 22 and 23 of the affidavit. The order passed by the trial court is just and proper and do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and no interference is warranted, at this stage.

¶10

Considering the submissions of applicants' counsel, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. It is evident on perusal of record that the order passed by the court below is very much supported by

¶11

evidence and does not contain any illegality and this Court does not find any genuine reason for substantiating the delay in filing the present application after ten years. Moreover, on perusal of material evidence annexed with record, prima facie discolses offence against the applicants and as such, no interference is warranted.

¶12

The present 482 application is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

¶13

Order Date :- 21.7.2025

¶14

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahesh Singh @ Mahesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Singh @ Mahesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases