Dismissed

Dinesh Yadav @ Bablu Yadav v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2019A482/43619/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph judgment dismisses an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge-sheet and stay of session trial. The Bench declined interference, citing sufficient evidence, the applicant's odious conduct due to absconding, and the suitability of the trial court to examine contradictions in the victim's statement.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the entire proceedings as well as charge-sheet is refused. Application is dismissed.

Dinesh Yadav @ Bablu Yadav Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43619 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Dinesh Yadav @ Bablu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hridai Narayan Sharma,Dinesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the Charge-sheet dated 5.7.2019 in Case Crime No.007 of 2019, under Sections 376, 511 I.P.C., 3/4 & 7/8 POCSO Act and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, 67-B I.T. Act, Police Station- Kothibhar, District- Maharajganj and for staying the proceedings of S.T. No.92 of 2019 (State vs. Arvind Singh and others), pending in the court of Additional District Judge-Ist, Maharajganj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the impugned charge-sheet was laid against the applicant in abscondance and now in the statement of the victim recorded during trial as P.W.-1 there are several contradictions which negates the complicity of the applicant in the present crime. Therefore, the entire proceedings of the session trial may be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has strongly opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings and has argued that during investigation and even after submission of charge-sheet the applicant remained absconding and since process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have also been issued he has approached the Court with unclean hands for quashing of the proceedings.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the applicant, especially, that prima facie there is sufficient evidence against him and the trial Judge would be the best Judge to analyse the statement of the victim recorded during trial, I do not find any merit in the application which may warrant any interference by this Court in the exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction. Thus, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings as well as charge-sheet is hereby refused.

¶10

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶11

Order Date :- 5.12.2019 Vikas

Dinesh Yadav @ Bablu Yadav v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Yadav @ Bablu Yadav v. State of Up 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

Ranjeet Kumar Gond and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Tiwari@Nandu Vs State of U.P.

Ashwani Pandey @ Anoop Vs State of U.P.

Teetu (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Irshad Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Parwaj Alam and Another Vs State of Up and Another