Ajay Kumar Mishra and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ajay Kumar Mishra and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 22.12.2011, summoning order dated 26.07.2012 and the entire Criminal Case No.1431 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No.211 of 2011 ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +2 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.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order having been passed in the year 2012 and about thirteen years having elapsed, no interference is warranted; the learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicants.

Key takeaways

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.ratio¶10
In view of the above and in the light of the cited judgments of the Apex Court (R.P. Kapur; Manik B.; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (Para-10)), no ground for quashing the proceedings 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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Court No. 72 (Deepak Verma, J.), Application U/S 482 No. 5482 of 2025; applicant: Ajay Kumar Mishra and 6 others (counsel: Maha Prasad, Rajjan Verma); opposite party: State of U.P. and another (counsel: G.A.); order dated 18.8.2025. The applicants sought quashing, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., of the charge sheet dated 22.12.2011 and the summoning order dated 26.07.2012 and of the entire Criminal Case No.1431 of 2012 (State Vs. Madan Mohan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.211 of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 338, 506, 504 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Chiluatal, District Gorakhpur, pending before the Civil Judge (S.D.-II), Gorakhpur. Applicants' contentions: no offence disclosed against them; prosecution instituted mala fide for purposes of harassment; charge sheet submitted without collecting evidence; applicants summoned by the Magistrate without applying judicial mind. The A.G.A. opposed, submitting that the applicants' points were factual disputes for the trial court and that this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no power to examine factual disputes. Held: (i) from the material on record, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants; (ii) the impugned order was passed in 2012 and, about thirteen years later, no interference is warranted - the learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicants; (iii) all submissions at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; and (iv) in the light 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 Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283), no ground for quashing being made out warranting interference through inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the application lacking merit was dismissed. All five Supreme Court precedents treated as relied on. No monetary quantum involved.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140155

Court No. - 72

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5482 of 2025

Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Maha Prasad,Rajjan Verma 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 22.12.2011; summoning order dated 26.07.2012 as well as entire Criminal Case No.1431 of 2012 (State Vs. Madan Mohan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.211 of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 338, 506, 504 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Chiluatal, District- Gorakhpur, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.-II), Gorakhpur.

Counsel for the applicants submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment.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 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 order impugned was passed in the year, 2012 and after about thirteen years, no interference is warranted. 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 .

Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Meenu Singh

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