Dismissed

Ezaz@ Azad Khan v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2021A482/17001/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order to proceed with a complaint case. The court held that interference was unwarranted despite alleged injuries and missing mobile phone as further evidence remains open in the complaint proceedings, especially given the one-year delay.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; no interference warranted at this stage.

Ezaz@ Azad Khan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17001 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ezaz@ Azad Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Challenge has been raised to the order dated 13.10.2020 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.11, Jaunpur, has proceeded to register a complaint case upon application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is, there are certain injuries suffered by the complainant side and there were also allegations of mobile phone snatching. On both counts, proper police investigation was called for. Thus, the learned Magistrate has erred in proceeding to treat the case as a complaint case.

¶8

The present application has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA. He would submit, the interest of justice has been met, inasmuch as, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint made by the applicant and proceeded by following the complaint case procedure.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, while it may be true that there are certain injuries claimed by the applicant, it is equally true that the occurrence is of 17.07.2020 and more than a year has passed since then. The applicant relies on certain medical reports in support of the allegation of physical assault. That and other evidence would remain open to the prosecution to establish

¶10

during the course of further proceeding in the complaint case. Moreover, merely because of the mobile phone alleged to have been snatched from the applicant has not been recovered, may not itself warrant a police investigation to be carried out, after a one year.

¶11

Leaving all courses open to the applicant to pursue in the complaint case, no interference is warranted at this stage.

¶12

Present application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 8.11.2021 Prakhar

Ezaz@ Azad Khan v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ezaz@ Azad Khan v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

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

Misbahul Islam Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sunita Devi and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anju Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gufran Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Pappu Vs State of U.P. and Another