Dismissed

Krishna @ Rinku and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2022A482/16043/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant. The Court held that a prima facie case existed and the requisite questions of fact could not be adjudicated at the current stage.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings and stay impugned order is dismissed.

Krishna @ Rinku and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16043 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Krishna @ Rinku And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 906 of 2021, under Sections 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Baghpat, District Baghpat (Ashwani Kumar vs. Krishna @ Rinku) as well as to stay the impugned order dated 7.9.2021, passed by the CJM, Baghpat in above case.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the opposite party No.2, was treated as complaint case by the court concerned. Applicants were summoned, after recording evidence under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The present complaint case is a counter blast of previous FIR lodged by the daughter of applicant No.4 against the opposite party No.2 and his family members, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354, 376, 511 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Asmoli, District Sambhal (Bheem Nagar), with a view to exert pressure on the applicants' side. Accused-applicants has nothing to do with Apache Motorcycle alleged to be purchased by the complainant. The entire complaint version is concocted and in this complaint there is no whisper of the case lodged by Smt. Kanchan- daughter of applicant No.4.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has vehemently opposed with this contention that the complainant/opposite party No.2 has produced sufficient evidence in support of complaint version and after considering the evidence recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the court concerned summoned the accused persons to face trial and at the stage of summoning only prima facie case is to be seen.

¶9

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no

¶10

offence is made out against the applicant at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

¶11

The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶12

Accordingly, this application is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 15.9.2022 Kamarjahan

¶14

Digitally signed by KAMARJAHAN ANSARI Date: 2022.09.16 13:17:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishna @ Rinku and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna @ Rinku and 3 Others 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

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munna Yadav @ Krishna Murari Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sajida Parveen @ Soni Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt. Priyanka Vs State of U.P and 9 Others

Haidar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Monu Soni and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another