Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 145186 (ALL)

SAURABH MISHRA and OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. and ANOTHER

A482/4129/2021 · 2025-07-07

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38213 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4129 of 2021 Applicant :- Saurabh Mishra And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Prakash Shukla,Abhinav Mishra,Ganga Prasad Mishra,Sudhir Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Awadhesh Mishra,Om Prakash,Ravindra Kumar Singh Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Ram Prakash Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh the learned A.G.A-I appearing on behalf of the State. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicants have sought quashing of the charge sheet dated 20.03.2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 600 of 2019 under Sections 354 Kh, 323, 504, 506, 498-A. I.P.C and Section3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow. 3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an F.I.R lodged by the opposite party no.2 alleging that the accused persons used to harass her for demanding dowry. 4. The matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court but the parties failed to arrive at a settlement. Accordingly, the application is being examined on its merits. 5. Assailing validity of the chargesheet and the cognizance and summoning order, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicant no.1 is husband of opposite party no.2 and he is a Manager in a Bank. The opposite party no.2 an 3 are parents of the opposite party no.1 and they are old and ailing. The applicant no.4 is the younger brother of the applicant no.1 and he is presently serving in Lakhimpur. He has submitted that the F.I.R has been lodged on the basis of false allegations, in order to put undue pressure on the applicant no.1 in the ongoing matrimonial dispute between the parties. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A-I has submitted that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R have been established during investigation and the Investigating Officer has submitted a chargesheet on 20.03.2021. The trial court has taken cognizance of the offences on 17.09.2021. He has submitted that the applicants have not sought quashing of the cognizance and summoning order. In absence of a challenge to the validity of the summoning order, the applicants cannot challenge the validity of the chargesheet only. 7. The learned A.G.A-I has also submitted that when the allegations levelled in the F.I.R clearly disclosed commission of cognizable offences and those allegations have been established during investigation, the trial court has not committed any illegality in taking cognizance of offences and summoning the applicants to face the trial. 8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the allegations levelled in the present case clearly make out commission of cognizable offences by the applicants. Correctness of allegation cannot be gone into by this Court while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. vs. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC Online SC 379 has held that while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. It does not require the prosecution/investigating agency to prove the allegations. While exercising the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not". 10. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed. In case the applicants appears and file an application for their release on bail, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law, including the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I., (2022) 10 SCC 51. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench