Disposed

Vinay Tripathi and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2021A482/19976/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash charge-sheet and cognizance order dismissed. Court held that factual disputes, evidence appreciation, and innocence defenses are beyond the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction at the charge-sheet stage. Application disposed of without merits adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash charge-sheet and cognizance order dismissed without expressing opinion on merits.

Vinay Tripathi and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19976 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vinay Tripathi And Anr Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Padmaker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dheeraj Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

The mediation between the parties has failed as reported by mediation centre by its report dated 25.09.2019.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. appearing for State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash charge sheet dated 02.07.2018 along with cognizance order dated 21.11.2018 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, VIIth, Kanpur Nagar as well as proceeding of Case No. 54285 of 2018 (State of U.P. Versus Vinay Tripathi and another), arising out of N. C. R. No. 09 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I. P. C., P. S.-Kidwai Nagar, District-Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that prima facie cognizable case is made out against the applicant. All the submission made at the Bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶9

The charge-sheet indicates that cognizance offences are made out against the applicants. Similarly, while considering a prayer for quashing of charge sheet in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court also cannot examine any defence of accused, which has yet to be placed before Court below. Stage of placing defence of accused does not arise at the stage of charge sheet and, therefore, this Court also will not examine such defence at this stage.

¶10

Time and again it has been highlighted by Supreme Court that at the stage of charge sheet factual query and assessment of defence evidence is beyond purview of scrutiny under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The allegations being factual in nature can be decided only subject to evidence. In view of settled legal proposition, no findings can be recorded about veracity of allegations at this juncture in absence of evidence. Apex Court has highlighted that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be sparingly/rarely invoked with complete circumspection and caution. Very recently in Criminal Appeal No.675 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1151 of 2018) (Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) decided

¶11

on 15th April, 2019 , Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under :

¶12

" 15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.

¶13

The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence.

¶14

In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case." (Emphasis added)

¶15

Recently, above view has been reiterated by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2020 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yogendra Singh Jadon and Another) decided on 31.01.2020 .

¶16

No material irregularity in the procedure followed by Court below has been pointed out. It is not a case of grave injustice justifying interference in this application at this stage.

¶17

In view thereof, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in charge-sheet and impugned cognizance order.

¶18

Needless to state that in the eventuality of filing any bail application by the

¶19

applicants before the trial Court, it is expected from the trial Court to decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law after considering entire aspect of the matter.

¶20

However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the competent Court below is to act, in accordance with law.

¶21

With the above observation, this application stands disposed of .

¶22

Order Date :- 8.9.2021

¶23

MN/-

Vinay Tripathi and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Tripathi and Anr. 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

Molai Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another

Arvind Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Anand Kumar Gaud Vs State of Up and Another

Mohit Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Nazim @ Nazir Vs State of U.P. and Anr.