Dismissed

Bhole Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2022A482/28244/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge-sheet and cognizance order, the Single Judge rejected the applicant's argument that the order was cryptic and proforma. Relying on the Supreme Court in Pradeep S. Wodeyar, the Court held that since the cognizance was based on a charge-sheet and the order reflected application of mind, no illegality was made out.

What did the court decide?

Application for quash of charge-sheet and cognizance order dismissed as there is no illegality.

Bhole Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28244 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Bhole Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

As per office report dated 01.07.2022, notices have already been served upon opposite party no.2, but in spite of that none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2, therefore, case is being heard finally in the absence of opposite party no.2.

¶6

Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶7

By way of present application, applicants made prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 07.07.2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 155 of 2021 as well as cognizance order dated 25.11.2021 and proceedings of Special Case No. 167 of 2021 (State Vs. Bhole Yadav and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)da, 3(1)dha, 3(2)5A SC/ST Act, Police Station Bisanda, District Banda pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Banda.

¶8

The facts of the case in nutshell is that on 13.06.2021, FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)da, 3(1)dha, 3(2)5A SC/ST Act and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicants on 07.07.2021 and thereafter court below took cognizance on 25.11.2021 and issued summons to the applicants.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued only sole point that cognizance order is cryptic in nature and while passing the same, the court below failed to apply its judicial mind as, it is in printed proforma. Except this, there is no other argument advanced by counsel for the applicants.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that present matter is a State case and cognizance was taken by the court below on the basis of charge-sheet and perusal of the cognizance order clearly shows that before passing the same, court below perused the FIR and case diary and other documents on record, therefore, it cannot be said that without application of mind, the cognizance

¶11

order was passed.

¶12

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶13

Admittedly, the present case is a State case in which, chargesheet was submitted against the applicants and on the basis of charge-sheet the cognizance order was passed against them. Learned counsel for the applicants pressed the present application on sole ground that cognizance order is on printed proforma and is cryptic one, therefore, is unsustainable.

¶14

The issue is no more res-integra and it is settled by the three judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep S. Wodeyar Vs. The State of Karnataka 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1140 in which after discussing its earlier judgement in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammad Hasanfatta (2019) 20 SCC 539 the Apex Court observed that if cognizance is taken in State case on the basis of charge-sheet then, there is no need to pass any detailed order and if from the perusal of the cognizance order, it reflects that before passing the same, trial court applied his mind then, cognizance cannot be said to be illegal. In the present case, perusal of the order dated 25.11.2021 shows that while taking cognizance, the court below perused the case diary, FIR, charge-sheet and other material on record and after perusing the same, court was of the view that prima facie offence against the applicants is made out, therefore, cognizance was taken against them, therefore, in view of Pradeep S. Wodiyar (supra) there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 25.11.2021.

¶15

Further, in Pradeep S. Wodiyar (supra) the Apex Court also observed that if there is any irregularity in the cognizance order then, on that basis, criminal proceedings cannot be vitiated by virtue of Section 465 Cr.P.C. Therefore, even if there is any irregularity committed by the court below while taking cognizance then, it cannot be a good ground to quash the proceedings.

¶16

From the reasons above, I find no merit in the argument advanced by counsel for the applicants.

¶17

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 11.7.2022 AK Pandey

¶19

Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.07.15 10:25:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhole Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhole Yadav and 3 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arun Kumar Pandey Vs Sudhanshu Gupta

Sonu Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another

Gauri Shankar @ Raju Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.and Another