The High Court refused to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet and cognizance order in a criminal case arising from a dowry dispute. The applicant submitted to the court below.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4640 of 2021
Applicant :- Amit Sahani Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Sahani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Sahni, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA-I for the Stateopposite party no.1.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the charge sheet dated 27.04.2020, submitted against the applicant under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Gorakhpur, arising out of case crime no. 70 of 2019 and to quash the cognizance order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) (F.T.C.) (C.A.W.) Gorakhpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant has sought to refer to the facts of the case and the defence which is to be pleaded before the trial Judge.
Learned AGA-I submits that the contention which is sought to be raised, would require appreciation of evidence and entering into the disputed questions of fact, which is beyond the purview of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to dispute the aforesaid legal position and fairly submits that he does not wish to press the relief, as prayed for, in the application.
Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant would submit to the jurisdiction of the court below and apply for bail.
In view of the aforestated facts, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.7.2021 Imroz
(Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, J.)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amit Sahani
State of U.P.
Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
