In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated after a counter-FIR alleging false charges, the High Court held that the extent of aggression is a question for the trial court. Consequently, the plea to quash was rejected.
Rejected the prayer to quash the criminal proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24691 of 2017
Applicant :- Arun Kumar Tripathi & Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Singh Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Deepak Singh Patel, learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State (opposite party no. 1) and perused the record.
By way of instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 177 of 2017 (State v. Arun Kumar Tripathi and Another) initiated as a result of charge sheet dated 10.07.2015 upon which cognizance was taken on 24.04.2017, arsing out of Case Crime No. 236-A of 2015 under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station - Pura Mufti, District Kaushambi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that opposite party no. 2 Rajnish Tiwari has lodged FIR against Arun Kumar Tripathi, Anil Kumar Tiwari, Udit Narayan Tiwari and two others with false allegation as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by applicant no. 1 -Arun Kumar Tripathi.
Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 contended that from his side, opposite party no. 2 Rajnish Tiwari has sustained injury.
Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer.
At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. Fact of aggression cannot be adjudicated by this court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It can only be decided by trial court on the basis of evidence available on record.
From both the sides, first information report at Case Crime No. 236-A of 2015 and 236 of 2015 have been lodged.
In view of above, prayer made on behalf of the applicants to quash the the entire criminal proceeding of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.
Accordingly, the instant application is rejected.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 I. Batabyal
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings instituted under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC may be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arun Kumar Tripathi
Another
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
