Dismissed

Kallo and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 May 2022A482/11005/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench refused the applicant's petition to quash criminal proceedings and the charge-sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C., finding that a prima facie case existed. While holding probabilities for quash, the Court granted a stay on coercive actions for one month pending an anticipatory bail application.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application to be moved within one month; coercive action stayed for that period.

Kallo and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11005 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kallo And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lallan Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of case crime no. 0622/2019, under Sections 308, 323, 504 IPC, police station Ghatampur, district Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat as well as for quashing the charge-sheet dated 30.06.2020 and cognizance/summoning order dated 23.11.2020, passed in the aforesaid case.

¶7

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and that FIR of this case has been lodged making false and baseless allegations. Learned counsel has referred statements of injured Sakila, who has stated that co-accused Manju has given a rod blow at her head and resultantly her bone of head has fractured. It was submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the applicants and thus, in view of the above-stated facts and circumstances, no case under Section 308 IPC is made out against the applicants. It was further submitted that applicants are mother and daughter respectively and that no prima facie case is made out against them.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that as per statement of injured witness, all the accused persons including applicants have assaulted the injured, however, the role of assaulting the injured with iron rod has been assigned to

¶9

co-accused Manju. Learned AGA has submitted that facts of the case clearly shows that assault was made in furtherance of common intention.

¶10

The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant(s) call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

¶11

After perusing the record, it appears that the allegations made in the FIR as well as the material collected during investigation, make out a prima facie case against the applicants. After considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record and also considering the law laid down in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605 and R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings/chargesheet is made out. Hence the prayer, as made above, is hereby refused.

¶12

However considering the facts of the matter, it is directed that in case, applicants move an appropriate application for anticipatory bail before the competent court concerned within a period of one month from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the said court expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶13

For a period of one month from today and till the filing of such application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶14

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 13.5.2022 Anand

¶16

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.05.17 11:04:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kallo and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallo 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

Rahul Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babu Lal @ Babu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagwan Singh Contactor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Omkar Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Anil Vs State of U.P. and Another