Dismissed

Sumit Tiwari v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2020A482/1849/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings due to alleged fabrication. The court held that embarking on factual inquiries is beyond its scope in such applications. It suggested mediation as the offences are compoundable.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash proceedings dismissed; mediation suggested for Magistrate's consideration.

Sumit Tiwari Vs State of Up and Another — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1849 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sumit Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raksha Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 312 of 2019 (State Vs. Sumit Tiwari & others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kalpi, Jalaun including charge sheet dated 21.04.2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 687 of 2016.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant argued that an occurrence took place on 20.12.2016, for which a first information report was got lodged, which resulted submission of final report, thereafter, a protest was filed, wherein it was treated as complaint case and there is summoning of present informant / opposite party no. 2 and other accused persons, against which a proceeding before this Court has been filed and the proceeding of above complaint case has been stayed. For the same occurrence, a fabricated medical report with a fabricated occurrence of 21.12.2016 was got lodged by opposite party no.2, wherein witnesses have specifically said in their statements, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that they will not come to the Court for giving their statements and there is only statement of informant, but on the basis of it, the impugned summoning order is there. Hence, this application with above prayer.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application.

¶9

From the very perusal of complaint and summoning made therein, it is apparent that the above occurrence was of 20.12.2016 and present one is of 21.12.2016. The present occurrence of 21.12.2016 was got registered as case crime number, wherein injured was having injuries, as was recorded in medico legal report, made by Medical Officer on that very day and this report was on the basis of bringing injured through police itself. The witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has corroborated the occurrence, though, they said that they will

¶10

not come to the court for giving evidence. Injured in his statement has said about occurrence. On the basis of this evidence, charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., has been filed, wherein cognizance has been taken. Hence, there was evidence for filing of charge sheet and taking of cognizance.

¶11

This Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to embark upon factual matrix because the same may prejudice fair trial and embarking on factual matrix is within domain of Magistrate. Accordingly, this application merits its dismissal. The application is dismissed as such.

¶12

However, the offences are compoundable and in previous case too there is offences for which there is stay order. Hence, Magistrate may consider for referring the matter for mediation in view of other cases in between same parties for trifling nature, though it is in the discretion of the court concerned and parties, and not being directed by this Court.

¶13

Order Date :- 27.1.2020 NS

Sumit Tiwari v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Tiwari 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

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

Dhirendra Kumar Chaubey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Singh Vs State of Up and Another

Ajit Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Manju Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another