Allowed

Raghavendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2021A482/20029/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted the applicant's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directing the trial court to pass a fresh order on the charge sheet after considering all relevant material and the enquiry report not previously accounted for.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the trial court is directed to pass an order on the charge sheet afresh after considering the enquiry report.

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

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20029 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Raghavendra Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Raghvendra Sharma with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of case no. 3160 of 2020 (State Vs. Raghvendra Sharma) arising out of Case Crime No. 212 of 2019 under section 304-A IPC, P.S. Saiyan, District Agra in pursuance of the impugned charge sheet dated 7.1.2020 pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Agra and summoning order dated 10.7.2020.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the enquiry report is the annexure no. 7 of the affidavit which reveals that no negligence on part of the applicant accused has been made out and the same was not considered by the court below while taking cognizance on the charge sheet. Moreover, cognizance on the charge sheet was taken by the court below without applying judicial mind in a set proforma.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

¶9

From the perusal of the order of taking cognizance which is annexure no. 5 of the affidavit shows that the trial court while taking congnizance did not apply the judicial mind. It is settled law that the Magistrate concerned while taking cognizance on the charge sheet is not bound with the conclusion of the Investigating Officer. The Magistrate concerned should also peruse all the material evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and having gone through the records should pass the order of taking cognizance. The impugned order shows non application of judicial mind.

¶10

So far as the enquiry report is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant admits that the same is not the part of the case diary, therefore, the learned Magistrate has not taken into account the aforesaid fact, while taking the cognizance on the charge sheet.

¶11

As such the application deserves to be allowed and the trial court is directed to pass order of taking cognizance on the

¶12

charge sheet afresh after taking into account all the relevant papers and evidence collected by the Investigating Officer.

¶13

With these observation, this application is finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.1.2021 SKS

Raghavendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghavendra Sharma 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

Deepak Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Chandrabhushan Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dori Lal Nishad @ Hori Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyaprakash Paswan Vs State of U.P. and an 3OTHERS

Kamlesh Maurya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another