Dismissed

Rudra Tripathi @ Deepu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2022A482/28015/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court held that the allegations disclose an offence and the disputed questions of fact must be tried on merits. The application for quashing was refused, and the applicant was directed to approach the court concerned for discharge.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash charge-sheet refused. Applicant directed to approach court of trial for discharge application.

Rudra Tripathi @ Deepu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28015 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rudra Tripathi @ Deepu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Kishor Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet no. 1 dated 19.04.2022 arising out of Case Crime no. 0056 of 2022 dated 2.4.2022, under Sections 379, 411, 413 IPC, Police Station Raipura, District Chitrakoot, taking cognizance by C.J.M.-I, Chitrakoot on 26.5.2022.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention; the informant Mayank Jaiswal, who is owner of the tractor, lodged the FIR against unknown persons on 2.4.2022 whereas occurrence was committed on 1.4.2022; the recovery memo dated 7.4.2022 is without any witness; applicant is studying at Allahabad; he belongs to a respected family and has been falsely implicated in this case due to village party fiction. The I.O. has recorded statement of informant, who had not disclosed name of the applicant; even the tractor driver has also not made any allegation against the applicant; the witness Sushil Singh has not named the applicant.

¶8

Learned AGA submitted that applicant has confessed his involvement in the offence before the police and involvement also emerges from the statement of co-accused Shiv Pratap and Kallu; recovery memo of stolen tractor shows that it was recovered by the police from the accused applicant and Lavkush, wherein, applicant was found to have been sitting along the driver seat.

¶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 offence is made out against the applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question 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

¶10

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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶11

The prayer for quashing the charge-sheet is refused.

¶12

The instant application is disposed of with observations that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order of this Court dated 30.5.2022, it is provided that if the applicant moves an application for discharge before the court concerned taking all legal and factual pleas available to him, his application be considered and decided in accordance with law, expeditiously. Order Date :- 22.9.2022 Dhirendra/

¶13

Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.09.26 11:30:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rudra Tripathi @ Deepu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudra Tripathi @ Deepu 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

Jwala @ Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Mata Ambar Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sher Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Meena Kumari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mridesh Narayan Yadav and 15 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others