Allowed

Arun Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2021A482/15454/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge bench allowed an application to quash a charge-sheet and criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. relying on the acquittal of co-accused due to hostile witness testimony, exercising inherent power to weed out fruitless proceedings amidst trial pendency.

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheet dated 4.12.1992 and entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1342 of 2003 are quashed.

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15454 of 2009

¶3

Applicant :- Arun Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- B.M. Singh, A.P. Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri R.S. Tripathi, Advocate, holding brief of Shri A.P. Tewari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 4.12.1992 as well as the entire proceeding in Criminal Case No. 1342 of 2003 (State Vs. Arun Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No. 873 of 1991, under Sections 147, 148, 427 I.P.C., Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Budaun, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun.

¶7

Short submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is, the FIR was registered against four named persons namely - Omendra Pratap, Ravendra Singh, Nirdesh Kumar and the applicant Arun Kumar, by the first informant Anokhe Lal, alleging that the accused persons had entered his agricultural field and destroyed the standing crops, on 20.11.1991. Though the trial of present applicant was separated and has yet not concluded, at the same time, it has been submitted, the trial against the other three accused persons - Omendra Pratap, Ravendra Singh and Nirdesh Kumar was conducted and concluded in Criminal Case No. 777/1996 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun. Therein, three witnesses of fact namely - P.W.-1 Shabbir Ahmad, P.W.-2 Pyare and P.W.4 Daya Shankar, were examined. All three ocular witnesses denied knowledge of the occurrence. They testified to have not seen the incident at all. The informant Anokhe Lal died before his evidence could be recorded. In such circumstances, the other three accused persons - Omendra Pratap, Ravendra Singh and Nirdesh Kumar, were acquitted by the trial court, vide judgement and order dated 20.11.2004.

¶8

Thus, it has been submitted, the criminal prosecution against the applicant is

¶9

also liable to be quashed as no evidence exists as may allow any fruitful trial to arise.

¶10

On the other hand, learned AGA would submit, in absence of defect in chargesheet, no ground is made out for quashing the trial proceeding. The applicant may remain at liberty to raise all defences at the trial.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, though the acquittal of a co-accused may not create any indefeasible right in favour of another accused to seek quashing of the proceeding, at the same time, in the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, the nature of the offence alleged coupled with the fact that all three witnesses of fact (who testified against all the accused) had turned hostile at the trial to the extent they denied knowledge of the occurrence and not just participation of those three accused persons (who were then acquitted), no useful purpose would be served in allowing the trial to continue against the applicant, in such facts.

¶12

It may also be recorded, in normal circumstances, the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may not be readily exercised in such matters. However, keeping the extremely large number of pendency of the criminal trials before all courts in the State, it appears proper to exercise this power in the present facts as fruitless proceedings must be weeded out such that the voices for those crying for justice must be heard that much sooner.

¶13

In view of the above, the present application is allowed . The charge-sheet dated 4.12.1992 as well as the entire proceeding in the aforesaid case are quashed.

¶14

Order Date :- 25.11.2021 Prakhar

Arun Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar 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

Alok Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ali Akbar @ Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chain Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh Bharadwaj and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Balkar Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar Modanwal and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another