Dismissed

Rajendra Nath Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2022A482/26897/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous application under s. 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash a charge sheet and cognizance order. The court found the application frivolous and lacking merit, but directed expeditious consideration of any subsequent bail plea.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous application under s. 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Bail application, if filed, shall be disposed expeditiously.

Rajendra Nath Pandey and Another Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26897 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Nath Pandey And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This criminal misc. application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 14.06.2019, cognizance order dated 14.06.2019, in Case Crime No.30 of 2019, under sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 452, IPC, Police Station Laxa, District Varanasi.

¶7

The prosecution case is that on 05.04.2019 at about 7.50 P.M. on the railway ticket counter of the complainant the brother of complainant Rajendra Nath Pandey started abusing a passenger standing there. When the complainant asked him not to do so then he also abused the complainant and started to beat him with chappal. Ajay Barnwal was also accompanying with the brother of the complainant and they entered into the office of the complainant, assaulted the complainant, broken the Laptop and committed loot in the office. They also threatened the complainant. Mukesh Mishra and Bhupesh Pathak have also assaulted the complainant on the way.

¶8

The grounds taken in the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. are that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicate. The reality is that the applicant no.1 Rajendra Nath Pandey and informant Krishna Nath Pandey are real brothers and there are dispute regarding ancestral property and several

¶9

civil and criminal litigations are going on between the parties. Applicant no.1 Rajendra Nath Pandey has also lodged FIR, Case Crime No.29 of 2019 against the four persons on 05.04.2019 and in that case police has submitted charge sheet against the opposite party no.2 Krishna Nath Pandey and two others, under sections 323, 504, 506, 427, IPC. There is no evidence against the applicants. Applicants have not committed any offence. The FIR has been lodged after much delay.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that if the grounds for quashing the charge sheet and cognizance order is not found sufficient, then his prayer for expeditious disposal of the bail application be considered.

¶11

Learned AGA opposing the application and contended that there is sufficient evidence on record. Oral evidence of the complainant/injured and the injury report is part of the investigation. After credible evidence collected during the investigation charge sheet has been submitted and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on it.

¶12

Applicants are named in the FIR with specific role. Complainant has suffered injuries and his medico legal report is also part of the record. Investigating officer on the basis of material collected during the investigation has submitted the charge sheet. Learned Magistrate being satisfied with the material available in the case diary has taken cognizance of the offence. The grounds as assailed in the application are all factual, which are matter of trial. There is nothing on record to show that charge sheet is an abuse of the process of the law and cognizance order or continuation of the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court. Hence there is no sufficient ground to quash the charge sheet or cognizance order. The Criminal

¶13

misc. application under section 482 Cr.P.C. lack merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

Accordingly, the criminal misc. application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶15

However, considering the submission of learned counsel for the applicants it is directed that in case the applicants apply for bail, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the various pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court.

¶16

Order Date :- 2.3.2022 VKG

¶17

Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2022.03.04 10:27:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra Nath Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Nath Pandey 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

Shashank Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Tarikhat @ Shavej Vs State of U.P.

Km. Aparna Kaushik Vs State of U.P and Another

Dharmendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sangeeta Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others