Disposed¶13

Anand Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2025A482/6323/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application disposed with directions: applicant Anand Kumar Singh permitted to seek discharge in pending Case No. 1747 of 2024 (Crime No. 1253 of 2023, State of U.P. Vs. Ankit Tripathi & others) involving Section 420 I.P.C. and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Barabanki; 7-day window to file discharge application, 30-day outer limit for its decision; no merits adjudication, no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Permission for the applicant to file a discharge application before the court below within seven days, such application to be decided by the court below within a further period of 30 days, strictly in accordance with law. ¶13

Anand Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45756

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6323 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Anand Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shadab Siddiqui,Shivani Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed with the prayer to quash criminal proceedings in Case No. 1747 of 2024 arising out of Crime No.1253 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Ankit Tripathi & others) under Section 420 I.P.C. and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki against the applicant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not involved in committing the offence and the story narrated in the F.I.R. is concocted and frivolous. He added that the criminal proceedings against the present applicant is nothing but harassment.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that there is no abuse of process of law and only factual matrix has been agitated before this before this Court and that could not be gone into at this stage, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thus the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

After the argument at length, learned counsel for the applicant submits that interest of justice would be sub-served, if this Court directs the court below to permit the applicant to appear before the court below and file an application of discharge. He further submits that the court below may be directed to decide the discharge application within stipulated period of time, as may be fixed by this Court.

¶11

Learned AGA for the State has no objection to the aforesaid submission.

¶12

In view of aforesaid, the applicant is permitted to file an application for discharge before the court below within a period of seven days from today and if such an application is filed, the same shall be decided within a further period of 30 days, strictly in accordance with law.

¶13

With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed off . Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Ram Murti

¶14

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anand Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. 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

Dheeraj Kumar Sinha and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Batoley @ Mata Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Akash Sonker vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Vijnesh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Amit Vikram @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and 5 Others

Anand Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another