Dismissed

Chhotu @ Mohd. Raseed Afridi v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2021A482/8598/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of proceedings based on disputed facts, the applicant waived the reliefs. The court declined to entertain the application and observed that quashing powers do not extend to appreciating evidence on disputed facts.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed as applicant waived the reliefs.

Chhotu @ Mohd. Raseed Afridi Vs State of U.P.and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8598 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Chhotu @ Mohd. Raseed Afridi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kshatresh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kshatresh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A-I appearing for the State-opposite party.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings as well as cognizance order dated 19.01.2021 passed by Special Sessions Judge (POCSO Act) Kaushambi in Special Case No. 20 of 2021 (State Vs. Chhotu @ Mohd. Raseed Afridi) arising out of Case Crime No. 544 of 2020 under Section 354-C, 354-D, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act & 3(2)Va 3(1)r SC/ST Act, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi pending in the court of Special Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Kaushambi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has sought to assail the order by referring to the factual aspects of the matter and the defence which is sought to be set up on behalf of the applicant.

¶8

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 powers to be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage of the proceedings.

¶9

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 reliefs, as prayed for, in the application. The reliefs prayed for in the present application are accordingly not entertained.

¶10

Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant would submit to the jurisdiction of the court below and apply for bail.

¶11

In case any such application is moved the court below would be expected to dispose it of in accordance with the settled principles of law.

¶12

Subject to the aforesaid observation the application stands

¶13

dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.8.2021 Pratima

¶15

(Dr.Y.K.Srivastava,J.)

Chhotu @ Mohd. Raseed Afridi v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotu @ Mohd. Raseed Afridi 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

Santosh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pinkal Singh @ Raghvendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vertika Chitravanshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramdas Tureha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohan Lal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another