Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 165327 (ALL)

SHIVAM MAURYA @ MINTU v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER

A482/7902/2025 · 2025-09-17

Shree Prakash Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7902 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528 B.N.S.S.) has been filed with the following relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.420/2021 (State V/s Ram Chandar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.09/2021, under section 147, 323, 354A, 325 IPC, P.S. Musafirkhana, District-Amethi alongwith the charge-sheet submitted by the investigating officer as Charge-Sheet No.A-55/2021, dated 24.03.2021 and summoning order dated 18.09.2021, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana, Sultanpur, contained in Annexure No. 1 and 2 to this petition" 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that there is no evidence at all against the applicant and only on the basis of statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. (Now Section 180 of B.N.S.S., the whole proceeding has been initiated and chargesheet has been filed. He added that the criminal proceedings against the present applicant is nothing but harassment. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing 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 Court and that could not be gone into at this stage, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528 B.N.S.S.) and thus the application is liable to be dismissed. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suresh Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shivam Maurya @ Mintu .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. 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. 6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection to the aforesaid submission. 7. In view of aforesaid, the applicant is permitted to file an application for discharge before the court below within a period of two weeks from today and if such an application is filed, the same shall be decided within a further period of 60 days, strictly in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of. September 17, 2025 Mohd. Sharif A482 No. 7902 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench