Dismissed

Yatendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2020A482/4835/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court refused to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding sections 504, 307, IPC, finding a prima facie case existed based on FIR and statements. The court directed applicants to surrender for bail consideration within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; direction to appear and surrender for bail consideration within 30 days.

Yatendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4835 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Yatendra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nasiruzzaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of complaint case no. 837 of 2017, Chandrakala Vs.Dinesh and others under section 504, 307, 427, 452 I.P.C. police station Mursan District Hathras including the summoning order dated 16.8.2018.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that initially an F.I.R. was lodged by the informant/ complainant Chandrakala after 11 days of the alleged incident. The I.O. has submitted final report. Thereafter, the informant moved a protest petition which was treated as complaint and on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C the applicants have been summoned to face trial. It has been further contended that this is a night incident and according to prosecution it has taken place about 12.00 'O' clock in night. In the statement of complainant recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. it has come that the coaccused Dinesh and Subham fired upon her due to which she sustained injury in her left hand and left shoulder. In the first information report as well as in the statement of complainant there is no allegation of firing against the applicants. The applicants are students and have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. It has been further submitted that as per injury report, one contusion has also been found on the persons of injured / the opp. party no. 2 but there is no explanation of this injury. It has been further submitted that from the side of applicants one F.I.R. of case crime no. 303-A of 2015 under section 308 I.P.C. was lodged against the husband of the opp. party no. 2. In counterblast the opp. party no. 2 has lodged this false F.I.R. It has been further submitted that there is no independent witness of the alleged occurrence. No offence is made out against the applicants. The summoning order dated 16.8.2018 is not in accordance with law. The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purpose of harassment.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. argued that in this case the F.I.R. was lodged by the opp. party no. 2 under sections 427, 506, 504, 323, 307, 147, 148, 149 I.P.C. against the applicants and three others. In this case the I.O. submitted final report against which a protest petition was moved by the opp. party no. 2 which was treated as complaint and on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. applicants have been summoned to face trial vide order dated 16.8.2018. In this incident the opp. party no. 2 has sustained injury. Learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants to face trial. There is no illegality or irregularity in the summoning order and there is no ground to quash the entire proceeding of the aforementioned case.

¶9

A perusal of record shows that the applicants have been summoned to face trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants to face trial. As per first information report and the statement of opp. party no. 2 under section 200 Cr.P.C. she has sustained gun shot injury in this incident. Injury report of the opp. party no. 2/ complainant which is available on record. As per injury report she received three injuries. The injury nos. 2 and 3 were kept under observation. The opp. party no. 2 was medically examined on 19.11.2015 at about 3.30 a.m. while the incident is said to be taken place on 19.11.2015 about 12.00 '0' clock in night. The complainant Chandrakala in her statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. has disclosed the name of applicants and she further stated that Dinesh and Subham fired upon her due to which she sustained injury on her left hand and left shoulder. I find no illegality or irregularity in the summoning order dated 16.8.2018. The Magistrate dealing with the complaint at this stage has to see only prima facie case and it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I don't find any ground to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned case including the summoning order, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶11

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004

¶12

(57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶13

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.2.2020

¶15

Gss

Yatendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yatendra and 2 Others 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

Ram Nath and Anr. Vs Smt. Bhawana

Somesh Pathak and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Mohd. Abad Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Vikas Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another