In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant argued for quashing proceedings based on an affidavit. The court rejected the contention, holding no merit warranting interference.
Application to quash impugned charge-sheet, cognizance order, and entire proceedings dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3355 of 2020
Applicant :- Pushkin Kumar Baliyan And Anr Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Pankaj Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Sri S.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 13.6.2018, cognizance order dated 29.11.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Special Case No. 4 of 2019 (State vs. Pratik Chaudhary and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 151 of 2018, under Sections 394, 342, 323 I.P.C. and Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- Bhojipur, DistrictBareilly, pending in the court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No.1, Bareilly.
The brief background of the case is that the first information report was lodged by opposite party no.2, Smt. Firdau B on 26.3.2018 against the applicants who were working as a police constable. The allegation against them is that the applicants and other accused forcibly entered in the house of first informant saying that some gold is lying hidden in the house which they have to excavate and assaulted the inmates and also looted Rs.40,000/-, ATM Cards etc. The matter was investigated thoroughly and the allegation against the applicants who were working as a public servant and instead of serving public they indulged themselves in the activity of loot and assault to first informant, her husband and others. The Charge-sheet no.273 of 2018 dated 13.6.2018 was submitted against the applicants on which cognizance was taken on 29.11.2019. The applicants had also moved an application for further investigation in May, 2019.
The main contention of learned counsel for the applicants for quashing the entire proceedings against the applicants is that the first informant has herself filed an affidavit before the Superintendent of Police on 7.5.2019.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. strongly opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings and has submitted that the applicants
are involved in a serious crime of committing loot and for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and merely on the basis of affidavit filed by opposite party no.2, the proceedings cannot be quashed, though, during investigation the first informant and other witnesses have fully supported the prosecution version.
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.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed .
Order Date :- 23.1.2020 Vikas
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings involving loot and Prevention of Corruption offenses should be quashed based on an affidavit filed by the first informant.
Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to dismiss the charge-sheet and cognizance order.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Pushkin Kumar Baliyan
State of U.P.
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
