Dismissed

Anil Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2021A482/6973/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an Criminal ARC under Section 482 CrPC challenging criminal proceedings for attempted robbery, molestation, and criminal intimidation. Holding that the prima facie case was made out based on the victim's statement and witness testimonies, the Court refused to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings was dismissed.

Anil Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6973 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Arshad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Mohd. Arshad, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging entire proceedings of Case No.2134 of 2020, (State Vs. Anil Kumar and another) arising out of Case Crime No.0085 of 2020, under Sections- 452, 354A, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Gangiri, District- Aligarh, now pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Aligarh.

¶8

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 15.05.2020, a delayed F.I.R. dated 16.05.2020 was lodged by informant/opposite party-2, Smt. Reena Devi, which was registered as Case Crime No.0085 of 2020, under Sections- 452, 354A, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Gangiri, District- Aligarh. In the aforesaid F.I.R., two persons, namely, Anil Kumar and Birendra have been nominated as named accused whereas, two unknown persons have also been nominated as accused.

¶9

As per prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R., it is alleged that on 15.05.2020 at around 11:00 p.m., accused persons entered the house of informant and thereafter committed criminality as detailed in F.I.R.

¶10

After registration of aforesaid F.I.R., police proceeded with statutory investigation of above-mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer took the statements of various witnesses. On the basis of material collected during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet dated 18.06.2020 whereby, named accused Anil Kumar and Birendra, i.e., applicants herein have been charge-sheeted under Sections 452, 354A, 504, 506 I.P.C. After submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by court concerned, i.e.,

¶11

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Aligarh vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 21.09.2020. Consequently, Criminal Case No.2134 of 2020, (State Vs. Anil Kumar and another) came to be registered.

¶12

Feeling aggrieved by above, applicants have now approached this Court by means of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in abovementioned case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. are not only false but concocted. It is then submitted that material brought on record does not support the prosecution story. Consequently, it is urged that entire proceedings are malicious and therefore liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. contends that subsequent to F.I.R. dated 16.05.2020, statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein, she has supported the prosecution case. It is next contended by learned A.G.A. that witnesses, who were examined by Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have clearly supported the prosecution case. In view of above, it is urged by learned A.G.A. that at this stage, it cannot be said that prosecution case is false and there is no material on record to support the prosecution of applicants.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed defence of applicants, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. This Court cannot appraise or appreciate evidence. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶16

In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 20.7.2021 Saif

Anil Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar and Another 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

Gaurav Johari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rijwan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another

Dharamveer Singh Vs State of Up and Another

Vidya Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Narsingh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another