Dismissed

Sangam Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2022A482/26283/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Circuit Bench judge dismissed an application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The application relied on an exonerated co-accused’s statement to exclude the applicants, but the court held that a mini trial based on piecemeal documents is impermissible under inherent jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The application to quash criminal proceedings, charge-sheet, cognizance order, and summoning order was dismissed.

Sangam Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26283 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sangam Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

This application has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4523 of 2022 (Computerized No. 6209 of 2022), CNRNO-UPMA040062392020 (State vs. Seema and Others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 353, 435, 427 I.P.C., Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act & Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station- Chiraya Kot, District- Mau, arising out of Case Crime No. 0010 of 2021 and charge-sheet dated 21.10.2021 as well as Cognizance Order dated 24.05.2022.

¶6

In the charge-sheet, the prosecution has proposed as many as 21 witnesses, however, statement of only few of them are placed on record.

¶7

Sri Ganesh Pandey, learned counsel for applicants submits that name of applicants were not mentioned in first information report and same were disclosed in statement of one of the accused, Ram Dulare. However, during investigation accused, Ram Dulare was exonerated and there is no other evidence on record to connect applicants with the alleged crime and since Ram Dulare has been exonerated, therefore, applicants who have been made accused during investigation only on the basis of his statement shall also be exonerated from the present case and the proceedings against them may be quashed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the above submission made by the counsel for the applicants.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants wants this Court to consider his submission on basis of his selective filing of documents. The applicants have approached this Court to quash the chargesheet, cognizance order as well as summoning order, which have been passed on the basis of material available with the

¶10

case diary. Only on the basis of piecemeal documents, above submission of counsel for the applicants cannot be considered for quashing the charge-sheet, cognizance order as well as summoning order under inherent jurisdiction as it requires proper scrutiny. To conduct a mini trial, is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Case of Ramveer Upadhayay and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another; 2022 SCC Online SC 484.

¶11

In view of the above discussions, I do not find any ground to interfere in the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed . Order Date :- 1.12.2022 Aditya

¶12

(S.No. 22/350 fresh cases)

¶13

Digitally signed by ADITYA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.12.03 10:51:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sangam Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangam Kumar and 2 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bachchu and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anurag Aggrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Seeva Femi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anurag Bharti @ Tinkal Balmiki Anfd 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar @ Raju Pandit Vs State of U.P. and Another