Dismissed

Saurabh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2019A482/30527/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the court examined an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge sheet. The applicant alleged false implication and existence of a contrary version regarding property disputes. The rejection upheld the submission that trial courts must adjudicate conflicting versions during the trial.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the charge sheet was dismissed. No case for grant of indulgence was made out.

Saurabh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

Reserved

Court No. - 51

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30527 of 2019 Applicant :- Saurabh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Gaur,Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶6

Exemption application is allowed.

¶7

Heard Mr. Anoop Trivedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Abhinav Gaur, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mohd. Nadeem, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the charge sheet No.77-A of 2018 u /s 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 506 and 120 B IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and also the proceedings of Case No.5013 of 2018 arising out of case crime no.51 of 2018 u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 506 and 120 B IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act relating to PS Auncha District Mainpuri pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri.

¶9

Contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been forced to participate in a trial in which he has nothing to do as the wife of the deceased herself has lodged an FIR against the real culprits. It may be appreciated that the wife of the deceased has also received injuries. Further contention is that there is another version available on record. Learned senior counsel contends that even though the applicant has been assigned the role of causing firearm injury to the deceased but it has been contended that there is enmity between the deceased and opposite party no.2 regarding some agricultural land and opposite party no.2 wanted to grab the same and thus, contention is that opposite party no.2 himself hatched conspiracy and committed murder of his brother in which the applicant has been implicated. He further contends that the wife of the deceased namely Smt. Devi is an illiterate woman and she was the eye witness of the murder of her husband. The opposite party no.2 just after two months of the incident got a sale deed executed in favour of his wife of the property of the deceased through a registered sale deed dated 14.5.2018. He

¶10

¶11

further contends that after the name of the wife of the opposite party no.2 has been mutated in the revenue records, the wife of the deceased filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed on 9.10.2018. He further contends that when the wife of the deceased came to know about the said fact, she moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 23.10.2018 by means of which it was directed that the FIR be lodged. Thus, an FIR has been registered being Case Crime No.238 of 2018 u/s 302, 420, 467, 468, 471, 342 IPC against the opposite party no.2 and three others. He also contends that the wife of the deceased herself has lodged an FIR against the opposite party no.2 and she is an eye witness. He further contends that once this is a situation that there are two story available on record, it is difficult to say that who is the main culprit. It has been further informed that the applicant is on bail. Thus, the impugned charge sheet issued against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed.

¶12

Mr. Mohd. Nadeem, learned AGA appearing for the State has strongly opposed the prayer with the contention that there is an FIR in which the applicant has been named and specific role has been assigned to him. As far as version or any other evidence is concerned, the same is the subject-matter to be gone into by the trial court as and when cogent evidence is produced before this Court and the charge sheet cannot be quashed on the grounds as brought up by the counsel for the applicant. Merely because any cross version or any cross FIR or any other FIR is on record, the same will also be considered by the trial court as and when the trial proceeds and evidence is produced before the trial court.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out at this stage.

¶14

Accordingly, the application u/s 482 CrPC is dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 06.9.2019 SP

Saurabh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Pankaj and Another Vs State of Up

Dhananjay Bind Vs State of U.P.

Harsh Jaiswal Vs State of Up

Ramji Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Ayyub Vs State of Up

Amit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.