Dismissed

Kali Charan and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2022A482/2857/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a charge sheet and cognizance order. The court held that the Court cannot examine the correctness of allegations except in exceptional cases where they are frivolous. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it found the case not to be one where the complaint was frivolous or the investigation based solely on evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned charge sheet No. 349 of 2020 and cognizance order dated 27.07.2021 were not quashed.

Kali Charan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Judgment reserved on 01.11.2022 Judgment delivered on 11.11.2022

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2857 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Kali Charan And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Pankaj Kumar Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶7

The applicants are challenging the charge sheet No. 349 of 2020 dated 30.11.2020 as well as cognizance order dated 27.07.2021 in Case No. 336 of 2021 (State vs. Jitendra Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 422 of 2020 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C., Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Etawah and further proceedings thereof.

¶8

Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for applicants has vehemently argued initially an F.I.R. was lodged from the applicants’ side against the side of opposite party No.2 (complainant) wherein after investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 3(1)A and 3(1)5 of SC/ST Act and as a counterblast, the complainant lodged an F.I.R. after eight days of alleged incident against the present applicants wherein after investigation, impugned charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken.

¶9

Learned counsel pointed out that in the F.I.R., two incidents are narrated. The first incident was about alleged misbehaver with ladies of the complainant’s side by the applicants and second incident was in retaliation to it when the complainant opposed aforesaid act, the applicants allegedly

¶10

formed an unlawful assembly and attacked persons of complainant’s side wherein women present were injured. However, during investigation, witnesses including injured witnesses have not narrated a single word in regard to first incident and allegations were limited to the second incident of assault. Therefore, the entire allegations against the applicants are based on a frivolous story and no case was made out against them. Therefore, the prayer made in this application be allowed.

¶11

Per contra, Sri Munne Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the above submissions and submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged mentioning two incidents, however, since the witnesses have narrated only about second incident i.e. assault on them which was corroborated by the medical examination of the injured witnesses which includes a fracture in the right wrist of one of the witnesses and as such the investigation was fairly conducted and the applicants were charge sheeted only for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C. and not for the alleged offence narrated in as first incident in the F.I.R.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

¶13

From the bare perusal of the contents of F.I.R. and the statements on record, the version of complainant as well as witnesses in regard to assault where the applicants were appeared to be aggressor being member of an unlawful assembly prima facie remained consistent which was completely prima facie corroborated by the medical examination of the injured witnesses which includes a fracture in the wrist of one

¶14

2 of 3

¶15

of the injured witness and as such it was a case where fair investigation was conducted and the charge sheet was filed in regard to second incident of assault only.

¶16

In recent judgments of Ramveer Upadhyay and another vs. State of U.P. and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 484 and Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936 , the Supreme Court held that, whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence.

¶17

In view of above legal position of law as well as facts as discussed above, prima facie charge sheet has been filed on the basis of the statement of witnesses on record as well as medical report of injured witnesses. Therefore, it is not a case where this Court may come to a conclusion that the complaint was frivolous or the outcome of investigation was not based on evidence on record collected during investigation.

¶18

Therefore, I do not find any merit in the application, hence, dismissed .

¶19

Order Date :- November 11, 2022 Nirmal Sinha

¶20

[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]

¶21

3 of 3

¶22

Digitally signed by NIRMAL SINHA Date: 2022.11.11 12:48:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kali Charan and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kali Charan and 4 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

Siddharth Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepmala and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Raju @ Rajkumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satya Pal Singh Rana Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nepal Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Yamini Vs State of U.P. and Another