Dismissed

Nikhil Kumar Alias Priyanshu Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2022A482/20388/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge dismissal of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge sheet and cognizance order. The court found prima facie evidence suffices, rejecting the applicant's claim of no eye witness. The application was dismissed as not fit for interference.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashing of the charge sheet and summoning order is dismissed with consequential costs.

Nikhil Kumar Alias Priyanshu Singh and Another… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20388 of 2022 Applicant :- Nikhil Kumar Alias Priyanshu Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Dev Singh Chanchal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State and perused the record.

¶4

Notice on respondent no.2 are dispense with.

¶5

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 27.12.2020, in Case Crime No.0719 of 2020, under sections 304 of IPC, Police Station Cantt, District Varanasi, as well as the summoning/cognizance order dated 26.02.2021, passed in Case No.5588 of 2021, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is no eye witness of the case, neither there is any recovery, therefore, the impugned proceeding are liable to be quashed. He further submits that treatment of the deceased was done at the instance of the applicant no.2 (Smt. Sarita Singh).

¶7

Learned AGA for the State has opposed the argument of learned counsel for the applicants and submits that FIR discloses prima-facie commission of offence, hence application is liable to be dismissed.

¶8

Perusal of statements of the eye witness at page no.56 reveals that there is an eye witness of the incident apart from the other prosecution witnesses, postmortem report of the deceased and clear allegations in the FIR, hence more than prima-facie case is there against the applicants. Thus the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicants is false and contrary to record.

¶9

There is no illegality in the impugned summoning/cognizance order dated 26.02.2021 as well as the proceeding. The case is devoid on merits and also this is not a fit case for interference in proceeding under section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

The application is dismissed, accordingly.

¶11

Order Date :- 19.9.2022/VKG

¶12

Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2022.09.21 11:40:21 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nikhil Kumar Alias Priyanshu Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Kumar Alias Priyanshu Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Narayan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jyotsna Jaiswal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Salman and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Mohammad Meraj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another