Disposed

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jun 2019A482/22485/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Applicant's plea under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the trial court's order accepting a final report as compliant. The Court held the trial court's direction to proceed with inquiry expeditiously (within four months) was appropriate and no valid reason existed for interference.

What did the court decide?

Additional direction to expedite inquiry within four months; application disposed of.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22485 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Satya Narayan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with request to quash the order dated 18.07.2018 passed by C.J.M., Firozabad in Misc. Case No. 223 of 2018 (Anil Kumar Vs. Amit and others), under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Sirsaganj, District Firozabad arising out of case crime no. 802 of 2015 whereby the learned trial court has treated the final report as compliant case.

¶7

Learned A.G.A has opposed the request for quashing the impugned order.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the police investigated the matter on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the applicant and submitted a final report. The case was registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC and, therefore, it was necessary to proceed with the case in accordance with law, but the learned trial court directed that final report to be registered as a compliant case. Further submission is that the police did not record the statement of witnesses and without conducting proper and fair investigation illegally submitted final report against the accused person, therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside and learned trial court should be directed to proceed with the case as State case.

¶9

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that learned Magistrate after receiving the final report from the police and hearing on the protest application of the informant, passed the impugned order. Since learned Magistrate found the evidence deficient at that stage, therefore, opportunity was given to the informant to give evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It is a legal way to address such kind of situation where the evidence collected by the police is found to be deficient and the informant has filed a protest application. There is no other way to the court except to give an opportunity to the informant to give his evidence, if he wants. There appears to be no valid

¶10

reason for interference in the impugned order, therefore, the application is disposed of with the direction to the Court concerned to expedite the inquiry contemplated for a complaint case under the Criminal Procedure Code expeditiously preferably within a period of four months.

¶11

With the aforesaid direction this application is disposed of. Order Date :- 10.6.2019 Ujjawal

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Kunal Sharma (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Sajid Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Jagmohan Singh and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mumtaz Ahmad and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another