Dismissed

Piyush Singh @ Chandra Prakash Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2020A482/1257/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge sheet and cognizance order. The court held that disputes regarding false implication and lack of investigation were factual issues triable by trial courts, failing to show a prima facie case.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; applicants directed to approach court below for bail.

Piyush Singh @ Chandra Prakash Singh and Another… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1257 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Piyush Singh @ Chandra Prakash Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pooja Chaudhary,Sharda Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for applicants, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Sharda Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 17.07.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 17.10.2019 submitted by the investigating officer in Case Crime No. 035 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 352, 353, 379, 336, 504 and 506 I.P.C. at P.S. Katchhwa, District Mirzapur, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Mirzapur.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants have been falsely implicated in the F.I.R. lodged by S.I. Kiran Santosh Baghdane of P.S. Noupada, State of Maharashtra; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged at P.S. Katchhwa District Mirzapur, the first informant along with police officials of P.S. Thane, State of Maharashtra had come for investigation with permission of Police Commissioner Maharashtra with information to police of P.S. Katchhwa, District Mirzapur and was on patrolling duty when applicants and their associates gathered there, abused the police officials with threat of life and upon asking them to desist, they started hurling lathis and pelting stones resulting in leaving the vehicle of police officials; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; that the first informant being a person from Maharashtra may not be aware with names of applicants and the names of applicants have been mentioned in F.I.R. at the behest of Abhay Singh @ Rajan Singh, the brother of village Pradhan Sanjay Singh; that subsequently Santosh Kumar @ Bala has moved application before Magistrate submitting their affidavits to the effect that no inquiry was made by police officials/I.O. and they never named applicants in their statements that in the circumstances the implication of applicants on earlier

¶9

statements of Abhay Singh and Santosh Singh is absolutely false; that the police has falsely investigated the matter and since the police of P.S. Katchhwa, District Mirzapur was accompanying the first informant, the investigation ought to have been monitored by higher authorities, so as to avoid tented investigation; that on the application and affidavits of Santosh Singh and Abhay Singh the Court has not passed any order; that the charge sheet has been submitted against applicants without proper investigation and so the cognizance order, charge sheet as well as entire proceedings of criminal case are liable to be quashed; that applicants previously filed Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.10827 of 2019 for quashing of F.I.R. in which protection was given to them till submission of charge sheet

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that the first informant is from Maharashtra and there is no reason for false implication of applicants; that the applicants were well known to local police who was accompanying the first informant; that the affidavits are not admissible in investigation and if the applicants somehow or the other have obtained affidavits from any witness or got them filed before Magistrate they are not admissible as the statement on oath before Court only can be considered; learned A.G.A. further submits that applicants earlier approached this Court for quashing of charge sheet but this Court refused to quash the charge sheet vide order dated 25.04.2019.

¶11

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which require evidence and cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, and the applicants have failed to prove any prima facie case.

¶12

In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that learned counsel for the applicants have failed to show that there is any abuse of process of court or likelihood of miscarriage of justice for prevention of which the exercise of inherent powers by this Court is required. The application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

However, if the applicants appear before the court below and move application for bail, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.2.2020 Md Faisal

Piyush Singh @ Chandra Prakash Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piyush Singh @ Chandra Prakash Singh and Another 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

Mustafizur Rahman and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tasleem and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahbaj M Deshmukh Vs State of U.P.

Sharda Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Singh @ Chintoo Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Vs State of U.P.