Dismissed

Krishna Gautam @ Krishna Kumari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2018A482/35078/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an order rejecting a complaint. The court held the impugned order did not exhibit any perversity or lack of material evidence and factual contradictions were irrelevant to the quashment prayer.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashment of the order under Section 203 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

Krishna Gautam @ Krishna Kumari Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35078 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Krishna Gautam @ Krishna Kumari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Bhushan Nath Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

By way of the instant application, the applicant has sought for quashment of the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Kanpur Dehat, in Special Session Trial (Complaint) Case No.123 of 2017 Krishna Gautam Vs. Sanjai and others, under Section 203 Cr.P.C., Police Station Akabarpur, Kanpur Dehat.

¶8

The contention has been raised that the entire record suggests commission of the crime against the applicant by opposite party nos.2 to 6. However, the court below while considering the case of the applicant vide its order dated 28.05.2018 has wrongly and erroneously rejected the complaint without any basis and on whimsical grounds.

¶9

Learned AGA has supported the impugned order.

¶10

Considered the submissions.

¶11

Admittedly, in this case, the incident took place on 21.05.2017 around 7:00 a.m. and medical examination of the injured Krishna Gautam and Nanhki was done at district hospital, Kanpur Dehat initially indicating the dated 20.05.2017, whereas, the same was cut at three specific places and described as 21.05.2017 in both medical examinations. This way, things become fishy and dubious.

¶12

Insofar as the impugned order on the point of factual aspect is concerned, the same has taken into consideration every detail contained in the

¶13

complaint as well as statement of the complainant and her witnesses. Obviously, pleading contained in the complaint is not verified by statement of the complainant and her witnesses in its entirety or within four corners such as the incident with various contradictions both in the manner and use of weapon as stated in the complaint and as described in the statement of the witnesses.

¶14

Basically, genesis of the problem was that some electric cable wire was being extended over the house of the complainant by the applicants as a result of which some altercation took place between both the sides. The averments contained in the complaint as well as fact have been rightly discussed by the lower court in its impugned order and the same requires no interference by this Court as factual aspect cannot be said to be either perverse or erroneous and not based on material on record. No good ground is made out for quashment of the impugned order. Accordingly, the prayer for quashment of the impugned order is refused.

¶15

Consequently, the instant application is dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.10.2018 rkg

Krishna Gautam @ Krishna Kumari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Gautam @ Krishna Kumari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Omwati Vs State of U.P.

Jaipal Vs State of U.P.

Dasrath Pasi Vs State

Noorjahan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Asha Vs State of U.P. and 6 Ors.