Dismissed¶11

Vipin Kumar and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2022A482/29989/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application rejected; summoning order 20.03.2021 and B.W. 02.12.2021 upheld; Case Crime No.309 of 2020, P.S. Jamuna Par, District Mathura; counterblast/cross case to 08.05.2020 murder of minor niece of Narayan Singh; Section 302 IPC; Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; prima-facie cognizable offence; no interference at threshold stage; Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; decided 5.3.2022.

What did the court decide?

On consideration of all facts and circumstances, the allegations made in the FIR against the applicants, the statement of the informant and other evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, a prima-facie cognizable offence is made out; in the Court's considered opinion, no case for interference is made out. ¶10

Vipin Kumar and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29989 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vipin Kumar And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mulayam Singh Yadav,Jitendra Shanker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 20.03.2021 and B.W. dated 02.12.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Case no.198 of 2012 (IX)/ 2021, State versus Vipin and others, (Case Crime No.309 of 2020), Police Station Jamuna Par, District Mathura.

¶7

Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have committed no offence. The entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. No offence against the applicants is made out under the aforesaid sections. It is further submitted that this is a counterblast case of the incident dated 08.05.2020 to create pressure upon the applicants, in which niece aged about three years of Narayan Singh was murdered and case was registered under Section 302 IPC against the opposite party no.2 along-with eight other persons. Opposite party no.2 herein moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on which learned Magistrate directed the concerned Police Station to investigate the matter and registered it. He showed some papers and statements in favour of his contention.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the applicant and submitted that this the a cross case. In both the cases incident has been shown on 08.05.2020. Date of incident and time in both the cases are same. It is

¶9

a matter of evidence, it cannot be ascertained at this stage, who was aggressor at the time of incident.

¶10

Upon consideration over all facts and circumstances of the case, allegations made in the FIR against the applicants, statement of informant and other evidences collected by Investigation OfÏcer; prima-facie cognizable offence is made out. In my considered opinion, no case for interference is made out.

¶11

In view of above, present application lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.3.2022 I.A.Siddiqui

¶13

Digitally signed by IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.03.09 18:14:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vipin Kumar and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Rahul Singh Raghav and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aditya Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bharat Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Maaz and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another