Allowed

Ramesh Yadav and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2020A482/3791/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of UP allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order framing additional charges under Sections 342 and 354-B IPC. The court held that no whisper of these offences existed in the FIR or victim's statement, rendering the order impugned order passed without due application of mind. The matter was remitted for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order framing additional charges under Sections 342 and 354-B IPC is quashed. Matter remitted to trial court for afresh disposal of application 34-B.

Ramesh Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of Up and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3791 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ramesh Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.01.2020 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Kasganj in Special Sessions Trial No.79 of 2018 (State vs. Ramesh Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No.182 of 2017 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) Ya, Ga S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Dholana, District Kasganj, whereby the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Kasganj has framed charges for offence under Sections 342, 354(Kha) I.P.C. and 3(2)5Ka S.C./S.T. Act against the applicants.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants have been falsely implicated in the F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no.2 on 27.06.2017 in which charge sheet was submitted and after framing of charges against applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) Ya Ga S.C./S.T. Act, trial commenced and after completion of prosecution evidence when case was fixed for recording statements of accused under Sections 313 Cr.P.C., the S.P.O. moved an application 34-B upon which the trial court framed additional charges under Sections 342, 354-B I.P.C. and 3(2) 5 Ka S.C./S.T. Act; that as per averments made in F.I.R. and in statement of opposite party no.2 before trial court copy at Annexure-6 the allegations of offence under Sections 342 and 354-B have been made only against applicant no.2 Naresh and no role of above offences has been assigned to applicant no.1 or applicant no.3 either in F.I.R. or in statement of victim on oath that learned trial court failed to consider that no offence under Sections 342 and 354-B is required to be made out against applicant no.1 and 3 as there is no offences under above sections against applicant nos. 1 and 3 and impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. supported the impugned order and contended that on oath statement of opposite party no.2 before trial court recorded on 29.08.2018 copy at Annexure-6 the victim has not only assigned the role of offence under Sections

¶9

342 and 354-B against applicant no.2 Naresh but she has also stated that applicant no.1 caused injuries to her.

¶10

In view of material on record and submissions made by respective counsel, I find that there is no whisper of offence under Section 354-B against applicant nos.1 and 3 in F.I.R. or in statement on oath of victim before trial court and no role has been assigned to applicant no.3 who is son of applicant no.2. In the circumstances the impugned order appears to have been passed without due application of mind and is liable to be quashed.

¶11

The application is allowed and the impugned order is quashed.

¶12

The matter is remitted back to trial court for afresh expeditious disposal of application 34-B in accordance with law and material on record.

¶13

The application is accordingly, disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 10.2.2020 Md Faisal

Ramesh Yadav and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Yadav and 2 Others 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

Bheem Singh Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Vs State of U.P.

Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupendra Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Chhotak @ Susheel @ Sunil Vs State of Up and Another

Rahul and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another