Dismissed

Ranjeet Singh and Another v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2021A482/2466/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings. The applicant cited contradictions in witness statements and the absence of an offence under Section 354 IPC in the charge sheet. The court held that evidence appreciation is for the trial stage and denied the prayer.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal proceedings dismissed.

Ranjeet Singh and Another Vs State of Up and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2466 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ranjeet Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Partap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Jitendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Phool Chandra, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2781 of 2020 including charge sheet dated 9.2.2020 under Sections 452, 323 and 506 IPC and summoning order dated 4.9.2020 pursuant to the FIR dated 21.1.2020 in Case Crime No.5 of 2020, PS Bharatkoop, District Chitrakoot pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that there are material contradictions in the statement of witnesses including the statement of opposite party no.2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He further contended that the FIR version also not fully corroborated by both the statements of opposite party no.2 as well as witnesses and after investigation charge sheet against the applicants was filed under Section 452, 323 and 506 IPC, as no offence under Section 354 IPC was found during investigation although initially FIR was also lodged under Section 354 IPC and, therefore, the charge sheet filed against the applicants is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA contended that perusal of the FIR as well as the statement of witnesses

¶9

recorded during investigation prima facie discloses cognizable offence against applicants and the medial reports of the injured persons also corroborated the prosecution case and after proper investigation charge sheet was filed against the applicants and the arguments advanced by the learned defence counsel can only be appreciated at the time of trial.

¶10

The FIR of present case was also lodged under Section 354 IPC against the applicants but if during investigation an offence under Section 354 IPC was not found then it cannot be said that in rest of the cognizable offences charge sheet against the applicants cannot be filed and further from a perusal of the statements of witnesses and other material available on record including the medical reports of injured persons, there are material on record on the basis of which prima facie cognizable offence discloses against applicants and further appreciation of evidence at this stage is not permissible.

¶11

In view thereof, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 4.12.2021 SKM

Ranjeet Singh and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Singh and Another v. State of Up 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

Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lokesh Atri Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chheddi @ Anita Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zakir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Geeta Deivi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others