Dismissed¶15

Smt. Usha Nigam v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2025A482/6140/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing refused; Section 340 Cr.P.C. perjury proceedings not warranted; rival interpretations of interim stay order dated 30.11.2007 in Review Petition No. 332 of 2007; Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2018; Case No. 112 of 2017; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Manoj Bajaj, J.; application dismissed (decision dated November 27, 2025).

What did the court decide?

The reasoning in the order dated 23.12.2017 dismissing the Section 340 Cr.P.C. application is based upon proper appreciation of the material on record, and no case is made out for initiating the proceedings for alleged perjury; the said order stands upheld in appeal. ¶11

Smt. Usha Nigam Vs State of U.P. and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6140 of 2019

¶3

Smt. Usha Nigam

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: :	Shiv Raj Mohan Nigam Govt. Advocate

¶6

Court No. - 29

¶7

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶8

Applicant has approached this Court through this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the impugned order dated 11.7.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2018, titled Smt. Usha Nigam Vs. State of U.P. and another, whereby the order dated 23.12.2017 dismissing his application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Lucknow in Case No. 112 of 2017, has been upheld.

¶9

No one has appeared on behalf of applicant. Learned A.G.A. is present

¶10

The order dated 30.11.2007 passed by this Court in Review Petition No. 332 of 2007 granting interim stay to one of the parties has been differently interpreted by the rival parties , and it led to the filing of application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. One of the parties pleaded that the interim stay till the next date of listing would mean that the interim order would continue till the petition is effectively taken up for hearing on a subsequent date, whereas other party interpreted that once the next date of listing is gone and order is not carried forward, the interim stay order would cease to operate.

¶11

The trial court vide order dated 23.12.2017 proceeded to dismiss the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and the said order has been upheld in the appeal through the impugned order dated 11.7.2018. The reasoning given in the order dated 23.12.2017 is based upon proper appreciation of the material on record, and at least no case would made out for initiating the proceedings for alleged perjury. The said order is also upheld in the appeal

¶12

A482 No. 6140 of 2019

¶13

¶14

as well, therefore, no case is made out for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶15

The application is dismissed.

¶16

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶17

November 27, 2025 P.S. Parihar

¶18