Allowed

Naghendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2019A482/16301/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings. The court held that since co-accused were acquitted and evidence failed to prove charges, no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the trial against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Criminal case no. 2345 of 2006 arising out of Crime No.44 of 2002 are hereby quashed and the application is allowed.

Naghendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16301 of 2009 Applicant :- Naghendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶2

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-1 for the State and perused the record brought on record.

¶4

This application has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal case no. 2345 of 2006(State Vs. Nagendra Singh) arsing out of impugned charge sheet in Case Crime No.44 of 2002, under sections 328, 511,120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Orai.District Jalaun, pending pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,Orai, Jalaun.

¶5

The mater was taken up by this Court on 26.11.2009 wherein interim protection was granted in favour of the applicant.

¶6

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that other coaccused persons have already been acquitted by the court below, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. It is next contended that the prosecution witnesses could not prove the charges against any of the accused persons. The trial of the applicant was separated and the same is still pending before the court below.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.5316 of 2004,Pradeep @ Bhondu @ Bantoo Vs. State of U.P. wherein it was held that since the case of accused- applicant was separated and is on the identical footings to that of co-accused persons, who were acquitted by the court below, therefore, the proceeding against the applicant was quashed and application was allowed. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.69 of 1955, Preetam Singh & and another Vs. Stat(SC)e of Punjab, 1956 AIR(SC) 415 , wherein it was held that on the concurrent findings of the lower court it is not for the Supreme Court to review or re-appreciate the evidence.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above as also the judgements referred to above and submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

¶9

Accordingly, the proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby, quashed.

¶10

The application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶11

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

Order Date :- 22.8.2019/IA

Naghendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naghendra Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.N. Sharma Vs State of U.P.and Another

Jagdish Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Mohit Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharam Veer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendrapal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another