Dismissed

Pramod Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jun 2020A482/44602/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of charges for impersonation during a typing exam, the Single Judge dismissed the plea. The court held that the applicant's arrest was confirmed and that discrepancies regarding the exact time and shift were not material facts capable of demolishing the prosecution case at this stage. Interim adjudication of such issues was deemed approp

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissing the appeal with costs.

Pramod Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44602 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Wajid Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Syed Wajid Ali learned Advocate for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State respondent.

¶6

At the outset, learned A.G.A informs that the Investigating Officer could not be present in the Court personally in compliance of the order dated 8.2.2020 passed by this court due to prevailing COVID-19 situation. On account of rising COVID-19 positive cases on daily basis, this Court find it proper to condone the presence of Investigation Officer. It is, however, submitted by learned A.G.A that he got the copy of the written report as directed by this Court and the contents of the written report and the chik FIR are same.

¶7

Sole ground to seek for quashing of the chargesheet dated 31.5.2019 submitted in Case Crime no.615 of 2019 (State vs Pramod Kumar Yadav) under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C P.S. Dhoomanganj District Allahabad is that the arrest of the applicant was not possible between 14.30 hours to 15.30 hours because the time of reporting for the typing examination in the centre in question was 3.00 p.m. The allegation in the First Information Report lodged on the basis of written report submitted by the Director of the Centre-in-question is that the applicant was found giving typing examination by impersonating as a candidate namely Avnish Yadav during the third shift of typing examination of Group-C services of the High Court, Allahabad, whereas the informant under Section 161 statement has submitted that the applicant was caught red handed during the second shift of the said examination. On account of these discrepancies, it is submitted that the entire prosecution case is demolished as the time of arrest of the applicant and the shift of the examination are relevant to go to the root of the case of the prosecution.

¶8

Learned A.G.A, on the other hand, submits that the applicant was caught red handed while impersonating in the typing test examination in the shift which commenced after 4.00 p.m. He was found appearing with the admit card of the candidate Avnish Yadav carrying his adhar card and was caught in the

¶9

examination hall by a team of the police officers in the presence of Centre observer who was Assistant Registrar of the High Court of Allahabad.

¶10

Considering the above, it is found that there is no dispute about the fact that the applicant herein was not a candidate in the typing test examination which was held on 8.3.2019 at the centre in question. A team of police officers visited the centrein-question and on enquiry about a candidate namely Avnish Yadav it was found that the applicant herein was impersonating the said candidate as solver in the examination.

¶11

There is no dispute about the fact that the applicant was arrested on 8.3.2019 from the centre in question. Time of arrest or discrepancy in the shift of the examination would not be such a material fact which would demolish the case of the prosecution at this stage.

¶12

The issue raised herein can very well be adjudicated during the trial as the prosecution has to establish its case by leading cogent evidence before the court of law. No interference is required at this stage.

¶13

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is devoid of merit and hence dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 10.6.2020

¶15

Harshita

Pramod Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mala Devi Vs State of U.P.

Girish Chandra Yadav @ Hariom Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailendra Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jeetu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

M/S Maa Aadi Shakti Constructions Vs State of Up and Another

Harprasad Vs State of U.P. and Another