Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2021A482/7429/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for underlying offences under the IPC and SC/ST Act. The court held that prima facie evidence on record does not warrant interference at this stage.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the charge sheet was dismissed as no good ground was made out for quashing the proceedings.

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7429 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Arun Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Azad Khan,Dharmendra Kumar Yadav

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Azad Khan, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing opposite party-2.

¶7

2. Perused the record.

¶8

Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge sheet dated 01.12.2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 0071 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148,323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C.and Section 3 (2) (va) 3(1)(dh), 3 (1) (d) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act1989. P.S.-Babhani, District-Sonbhadra, Cognizance Taking Order dated 11.12.2020 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Sonbhadra as well as entire proceedings of consequential Special Sessions Trial No.713 of 2020 (State Vs. Manoj and others) under Sections 147, 148,323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C.and Section 3 (2) (va) 3(1)(dh), 3(1)(d) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-1989, P.S.Babhani, District-Sonbhadra pending in the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sonbhadra.

¶9

Record shows that an F.I.R. dated 03.10.2020 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2, Sri Hari Prasad which was registered as Case Crime No. 0071 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148,323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C.and Section 3 (2) (va) 3(1)(dh), 3 (1) (d) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

¶10

of Atrocities) Act-1989. P.S.-Babhani, District-Sonbhadra. In the aforesaid F.I.R., six persons namely, Majoj, Murlilal, Rajkumar, Arun Kumar, Dilip Kumar and Vishal have been nominated as named accused.

¶11

As per the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. named accused are alleged to have assaulted first informant with lathi and danda, uncle of first informant is alleged to have been stabbed by a knife. Apart from above, accused persons are alleged to have uttered caste denoting words and further extended threat to first informant in case he visits the disputed land.

¶12

After registration of above mentioned F.I.R., Police proceeded with statutory investigation of above mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. Injured Hari Prasad and Ram Prasad were medically examined. Statements of various witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were duly recorded by Investigating Officer. Thereafter on the basis of material collected during course of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet dated 01.12.2020 against all the named accused, upon which cognizance was taken resulting in above mentioned criminal case.

¶13

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. No incident as alleged in F.I.R. occurred. He further contends that a registered sale deed dated 17.07.2003 was executed by one Shiv Prasad sone of informant/opposite party-2, Shiv Prasad in favour of Sanjay Kumar brother of applicant. When sale deed was executed in favour of brother of applicant the valuation of land was very law. However, on date valuation has gone very high. Therefore, to resume the land, which has already been sold vide registered

¶14

sale deed dated 17.07.2003 present criminal proceedings have been engineered by informant/opposite party-2. No occurrence as alleged in F.I.R. ever took place. Consequently, present criminal proceedings are not only malicious but also an abuse of process of court. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus urged that present criminal proceedings initiated by opposite party-2 are liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A has opposed the present application. He submits that Investigating Officer in order to ascertain the truth about occurrence as alleged in F.I.R. has recorded statements of various witnesses including that of injured Hari Prasad who has also been nominated as a prosecution witness in the charge-sheet. The injury report of injured Hari Prasad and Ram Prasad are on record as Annexure 3 to the affidavit. On the basis of above, learned A.G.A. contends that at this stage, it cannot be said that F.I.R. is false, no occurrence as alleged in F.I.R. took place or applicant is being maliciously prosecuted. Prosecution case stands supported by injury reports of injured Hari Prasad and Ram Prasad as well as statements of Jawahir, Pradeep, Rakesh Jaiswal, Ram Tahal, which have been recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C.As such prima facie it cannot be said that no case is made out against applicants. Consequently, no good ground is made out by applicant warranting interference by this Court.

¶16

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

¶17

its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. This Court cannot appraise and appreciate evidence for recording a finding of innocence of accused/applicant. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court i n 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.

¶18

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

¶19

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

Order Date :- 15.7.2021 YK

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar 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

Amit Singh 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Monu Rajendra Marothiya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arif Malik @ Mohammad Arif Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajeet Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amzad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Swati @ Gulnar Rayeen and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others