Dismissed¶¶10

Jatashankar Mishra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2025NA528/35897/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 528 BNSS; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 14A of the 1989 Act; inherent jurisdiction; maintainability; withdrawal with liberty; alternative/appropriate remedy; Full Bench Ghulam Rasool Khan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others; F.I.R./order sheet return; Jatashankar Mishra; State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court; Court No. 74; Deepak Verma, J.; November 3, 2025; Application No. 35897 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the application with liberty to avail appropriate/alternative remedy; certified copy of the F.I.R./order sheet to be returned to the applicant as per rule after retaining a photo-stat copy on the record. ¶¶10

Jatashankar Mishra and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the application under Section 528 BNSS invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court was maintainable, given the Full Bench ruling that an aggrieved person having the remedy of appeal under Section 14A of the 1989 Act cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶¶8

Court's answer

In view of the Full Bench judgment in Ghulam Rasool Khan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (para 17(iii), Question No. III answered in negative), the applicant was permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to avail appropriate remedy.

¶¶9

Ratio / Principle

The application under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative remedy.

¶¶10

Key takeaways

Certified copy of the F.I.R./order sheet was directed to be returned to the applicant as per rule after retaining a photo-stat copy of the same on the record.ratio¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.), November 3, 2025 — Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 35897 of 2025, Jatashankar Mishra and 2 others v. State of U.P. and another: Placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment in Ghulam Rasool Khan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, para 17(iii), wherein Question No. (III) was answered in negative by holding that an aggrieved person having the remedy of appeal under Section 14A of the 1989 Act cannot be allowed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court permitted the applicant to withdraw the application with liberty to avail appropriate remedy and dismissed the application as withdrawn with liberty to avail the alternative remedy; certified copy of the F.I.R./order sheet to be returned to the applicant as per rule after retaining a photo-stat copy on the record.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35897 of 2025

¶3

Jatashankar Mishra And 2 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Akshat Jain
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 74

¶7

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶8

The full Bench judgment passed in Ghulam Rasool Khan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others the Court in para-17 (iii) has held that Question No. (III) is answered in negative holding that the aggrieved person having remedy of appeal under Section 14A of the 1989 Act, cannot be allowed to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶9

In view of the aforesaid judgment, the applicant is permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to avail appropriate remedy.

¶10

The application is, accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative remedy.

¶11

Certified copy of the F.I.R./order sheet be returned to the applicant as per rule after retaining a photo-stat copy of the same on the record.

¶12

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶13

November 3, 2025 Meenu Singh

¶14

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

Jatashankar Mishra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatashankar Mishra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rahul Srivas and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Zamir Ahmad vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Narendra vs State of U.P. and Another

Hukum Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Maan Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another