Jyoti Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8249

Court No. - 28

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9758 of 2024

Applicant :- Jyoti Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 10.04.2023 as well as the N.B.W. order dated 26.6.2023 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 84 of 2023 u/S 138, Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, P.S. Motigarpur, District Sultanpur, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Sultanpur, and the entire proceeding of the said Criminal Complaint Case.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment.

¶9

After some argument, learned counsel for the applicant confined his prayer to the extent that a positive direction may be given to learned trial court that if a bail application is moved before it by the applicant, the same may be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law in light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 as the punishment in the above case is less than seven years.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection to the prayer made by learned Counsel for the applicant and submit that a positive direction may be issued to the learned trial court to consider and decide the bail application, if moved before it by the applicant, expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the public prosecutor.

¶11

From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicant.

¶12

The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of summoning order/charge sheet or criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing of summoning order/charge sheet/impugned proceedings is refused. There is no merit in this case. The applicant has ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.

¶13

In view of the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, if the applicant appears and surrenders before the trial court and applies for bail within three weeks' from today, the prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the trial court in accordance with law after hearing the Public Prosecutor in light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) .

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed of .

¶15

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶16

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶17

( Brij Raj Singh, J. )

¶18

Order Date :- 7.2.2025 A.Nigam

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jyoti Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raman Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Ram Lakhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Dahin Vs State of U.P.

Yasmeen and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Nandini Rawat Thru. Her Father Arjun Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Sampata Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Provisionary Officer, Collectorate Lko. and 7 Others