Mukesh vs State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(SC) 1149

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 1149

ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Mukesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Raghvendra Upadhyay, Adv. Mrs. Purnima Jain, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chandra Kishore Yadav, Adv. Mr. Kisalaya Shukla, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Ms. Preeti Goel, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Rathi, Adv. Ms. Apurva Singh, Adv.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the State.

3. None appears for the first informant.

4. The appellants filed a petition before the High Court of Allahabad praying for quashing the criminal proceedings. The prayer in the writ petition was for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) filed at the instance of the fourth respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470, 477, 448, 427 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

5. By the impugned order dated 8th May, 2024, which is a one line order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the statement of the first informant that a charge-sheet has been filed. We are surprised to note that without considering the case of the appellants on merits, the petition has been dismissed as infructuous. We fail to understand how a petition for quashing criminal proceedings becomes infructuous on the ground of filing of a charge- sheet. Only on this ground itself, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel representing the State of Uttar Pradesh submits that the High Court order does not call for interference as the appellant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document