Dismissed

Shri Ram Dubey @ Shri Ram Lallan Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2022A482/21080/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an FIR and summons. The court held that the plea of alibi and the claimed bias of witnesses are factual issues to be determined by a trial court after evidence is adduced, precluding interference at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Shri Ram Dubey @ Shri Ram Lallan Dubey Vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 92 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21080 of 2021 Applicant :- Shri Ram Dubey @ Shri Ram Lallan Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Shekhar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Zain Abbas

¶2

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA as well as Shri Vineet Vikram, Advocate Holding Brief of Shri Zain Abbas, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

¶4

Present petition has been preferred to quash the charge-sheet dated 19.01.2021 along with Cognizance and summoning order dated 20.02.2021 in Criminal Case No. 139 of 2021 arising out of Case No. 58 of 2020 under Section 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, 188, 308 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sureri, District Jaunpur pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Court No. 18, Jaunpur.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present FIR has been filed by the respondent no. 2 as a counter blast. The alleged incident was occurred on 11.09.2020 and for the same, an FIR was lodged by the cousin brother of the applicant on 12.09.2020 and after two days, an FIR was lodged by the respondent no. 2. It is further submitted that both the sides got injuries in the said incident. It is further submitted that on the date of incident, the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence as he was in Mumbai. It is further submitted that the eye-witness produced by the prosecution side are near relatives, hence they are interested witnesses.

¶6

On the other hand, learned AGA and Shri Vineet Vikram, Advocate Holding Brief of Shri Zain Abbas, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 have submitted that from the FIR and the statements, the offence is made out against the applicants.It is further submitted that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial by adducing

¶7

evidence and, therefore, the petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

¶8

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 offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only primafacie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the 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, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843 , TGN Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2011 2 SCC 772 and lastly Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in 2019 SCC Online 948 .

¶9

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record as well as considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it is found that the matter requires determination that who was the aggressor of the incident for which evidence is to be led by both the parties. As far as plea of alibi taken by the applicants is concerned, it will be seen during trial by adducing the evidence. Even the plea that eye witnesses are interested witnesses will be seen during trial whether their testimony is trustworthy or not. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot scrutinize the material in the manner in which the trial court would do in the course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced.

¶10

In view of above, this petition is devoid of merit and hence no interference is required.

¶11

Petition under Section 482 is hereby dismissed .

¶12

Order Date :- 5.4.2022/Ashish

¶13

Digitally signed by ASHISH MISHRA Date: 2022.04.06 14:05:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shri Ram Dubey @ Shri Ram Lallan Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ram Dubey @ Shri Ram Lallan Dubey 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

Salman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Amit Chaurasia Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sesh Narayan and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Habib Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Raseed Khan Vs Smt. Saeeda Khan and Another