# Ravikant Mishra and another v. State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy.,Home and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 303
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-03-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 2009
- **Bench:** Imtiyaz Murtaza, Ashwani Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravikant-mishra-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-thru-prin-secy-home-and-others-41879
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

C.S.C
Sri P.C.Agrawal
Sri R.K.Singh
Sri R.S Pandey
Sri T.N.Gupta

Civil
Procedure
Code-Section-151Second Application to recall earlier order
of dismissal in default-case shown on
both court-omission of Counsel-firstly
due to slip of eye could nor mark and
secondly Counsel suffering from High
Blood Pressure-held-the Counsel as well
as party both not diligent-with warning
of
Counsel
in
future-writ
Petition
restored on original number subject to
payment of cost of Rs. 1000/-

Held: Para 6

The Court can not restrain itself from
making a comment upon the conduct of
the counsel, which has not been up to
the mark. Once a petition is dismissed
and an application is moved by the
counsel for restoration, he should be
doubly vigilant that the application for
restoration does not get dismissed in
default. Dismissal of this application
indicates that the petitioner as well as
his counsel have not been diligent and

## Text

1 All] Ravikant Mishra and another V. State of U.P. and others
303
perusal
of
the
recovery
certificate
(Annexure-3 to the writ), it is clear that
recovery certificate has not been issued
against petitioner No.1, rather recovery
certificate has been issued against the
guarantors, who have given personal
guarantee, which fact is mentioned in
paragraph 5 of the recovery certificate.

28. In view of the foregoing
discussions, none of the submissions
raised by learned counsel for the
petitioners can be accepted. The recovery
proceedings, which were initiated by
recovery certificate dated 26th March,
2002 against guarantors only, are not
barred and there is no error in the
recovery proceedings.

29. Both the writ petitions lack merit
and are dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.03.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE IMTIYAZ MURTAZA,J.
THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH,J.

Misc. Bench no. - 2218 of 2011

Ravikant Mishra and another ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy.,Home and
others

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.P. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Quashing of FIR-offence under section
147,148,149,452,323, 504, 506 IPC-from
bare
perusal
of
content
of
FIR
Cognizable offence disclosed-No valid
ground for quashing FIR made outhowever in light of Lal Kamlendra Pratap
Singh
as
well
as
Amrawati
casenecessary guidelines issued, excluding
gravious offenses.

Case law discussed:
Criminal
Appeal
No.
539
of
2009
Lal
Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.;
Amrawati v. State of U.P. 2005 Cr.L.J. 755.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J. )

1. Prayer in this petition is for
quashing of the F.I.R case crime no. 724-A
of 2010 under sections 147, 148, 149, 452,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(i)X of S.C./S.T.
Act police station Ram Nagar district
Barabankiand also for stay of arrest during
pendency of writ petition.

2. From a punctilious reading of the
contents of the F.I.R, it cannot be said that
ex facie no cognizable offence is disclosed
or that there is any legal fetters operating as
an obstacle in the way of investigation and
by this reckoning, there is no discernible
valid ground for quashment of the F.I.R.

Our attention is adverted to a recent
decision of the Apex Court dated 23.3.2009
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 2009
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of
U.P.
wherein
the
Apex
Court
quintessentially observed that in appropriate
cases, the court may consider enlarging
accused
on
interim
bail
pending
consideration of his regular bail observing
further that arrest is not a must in each case
when a First Information Report of a
cognizable offence is lodged. The Apex
Court also relied upon with approval a
decision of Full Bench of Allahabad High
Court in Amrawati v. State of U.P. 2005
Cr.L.J. 755 wherein the observations made
were on similar lines.
304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

Having considered the facts and
arguments advanced across the bar, we are
of the view that the petition be disposed of
attended with following directions.

If an application is moved before the
competent Magistrate within 3 weeks, while
fixing a date of about a week, the learned
Magistrate may pass appropriate order
directing that the petitioner be not arrested
without permission of the Magistrate
between the date of moving application for
surrender and the date fixed for his
appearance in the court. In the meanwhile,
the court may call upon the prosecution to
obtain instructions from the Investigating
officer and thereafter, dispose of the bail
application accordingly in the light of the
observations made in Amarawati's case
(supra). It would also be open to the learned
Magistrate to pass order granting interim
bail to the petitioner in appropriate cases on
such terms and conditions as may be
deemed necessary till next date of hearing
of the bail applications in case the court is
not in a position to dispose of the bail
application or some further instructions are
required to do justice in the matter.

However, in grave offences like
murder, dacoity, robbery, rape etc or cases
under the Gangsters Act or where the
accused is likely to abscond and evade the
process of law or where the accused is a
habitual offender with lot of cases to his
discredit or in an offence involving high
stake scam, the court will act with restraint
and in its discretion may desist from
extending coverage of the said decision.

3. The petition is disposed of
accordingly
in
terms
of
above
directions/observations.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 7.03.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHABIHUL HASNAIN, J.

Consolidation No. - 2413 of 1982

Ashok Kumar Singh and Others

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation,Kanpur
Camp Unnao and another ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.K.Singh
Sri Suresh Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C
Sri P.C.Agrawal
Sri R.K.Singh
Sri R.S Pandey
Sri T.N.Gupta

Civil
Procedure
Code-Section-151Second Application to recall earlier order
of dismissal in default-case shown on
both court-omission of Counsel-firstly
due to slip of eye could nor mark and
secondly Counsel suffering from High
Blood Pressure-held-the Counsel as well
as party both not diligent-with warning
of
Counsel
in
future-writ
Petition
restored on original number subject to
payment of cost of Rs. 1000/-

Held: Para 6

The Court can not restrain itself from
making a comment upon the conduct of
the counsel, which has not been up to
the mark. Once a petition is dismissed
and an application is moved by the
counsel for restoration, he should be
doubly vigilant that the application for
restoration does not get dismissed in
default. Dismissal of this application
indicates that the petitioner as well as
his counsel have not been diligent and