Allowed

Anchal Anjariya and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2020A482/5069/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated against applicants. The trial Court acted wrongly by rejecting a final report and summoning applicants because it treated protest petitions as evidence via affidavits instead of following Chapter XV Cr.P.C. procedure.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No. 621 of 2019 were quashed including the summoning order dated 2.1.2020.

Anchal Anjariya and Anr. Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5069 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Anchal Anjariya And Anr. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed by Shri R.K. Shukla, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 today in the Court is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Ashwini Kumar Ojha learned counsel for applicants, Shri R.K. Shukla learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No.621 of 2019 (Sani Verma vs. Anchal Anjariya and another) pending the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jhansi including the summoning order dated 2.1.2020 in Case Crime No.507 of 2018 u/s 323, 540 I.P.C. and 3(1) Da, Dha SC/ST Act, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants have been falsely implicated in F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no.2 in which upon investigation final report was submitted by I.O.; that against final report, opposite party no.2 filed protest petition along with evidence of Ranjit Vanshakar, Atul Mishra etc. and learned trial Court has acted wrongly in passing the impugned order dated 2.1.2020 rejecting the final report and summoning the applicants for offences under Section 323, 504 I.P.C and 3(1) Da, Dha S.C./S.T. Act; that impugned order is wrong and illegal and trial Court had no jurisdiction to pass impugned order without following the procedure laid down under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C.; that impugned order if allowed to stand would cause abuse of process of Court and is liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 supported the impugned order and contended that Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance despite submission of final report.

¶10

Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that it is settled principal of law that submission of final report in a criminal case the Court may (i) either accept final report (ii) order for further investigation (iii) if finds sufficient material

¶11

evidence on the case diary (iv) reject the final report and outright take cognizance of the offences and (v) if the material on case diary is not sufficient but the material in support of protest petition appears to be sufficient shall follow the procedure of law laid down in Chapter XV of Cr.P.C., treating the protest petition as complaint and pass suitable order under Sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C. as the case may be. In this case the trial Court in passing the impugned order has paid reliance on the affidavits of Vinod Kumar Awasthi and Atul Kumar Mishra which is not permissible under law. The impugned order is wrong and illegal and is liable to be quashed.

¶12

In the facts and circumstances on record, as mentioned in the impugned order the trial Court was required to treat protest petition as complaint case and pass suitable order after following the procedure laid down in Chapter XV of Cr.P.C.

¶13

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No.621 of 2019 (Sani Verma vs. Anchal Anjariya and another) pending the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jhansi including the summoning order dated 2.1.2020 in Case Crime No.507 of 2018 u/s 323, 540 I.P.C. and 3(1) Da, Dha SC/ST Act, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi are quashed, accordingly.

¶14

The matter remitted back to trial Court for a fresh disposal of final report/protest petition, in accordance with law and observations made in the body of the judgment.

¶15

Order Date :- 14.2.2020

¶16

Anchal Anjariya and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anchal Anjariya and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Ratnesh @ Ratansen Chaudhary Vs State of Up and Another

Ram Lakhan Vs State of Up and Another

Chandra Bhawan Vs State of Up and Another

Rajpal and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Satyam Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Pintoo @ Sanjay Kumar and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.