Dismissed

Prashant Singh @ Pinku and 15 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2022A482/5446/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash criminal proceedings for alleged damage to public property, the High Court rejected the claim of false implication based on political party affiliation as it cannot be a defense at this stage. Finding that the FIR and witness statements prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence, the court dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 9354 of 2019 was dismissed.

Prashant Singh @ Pinku and 15 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5446 of 2022 Applicant :- Prashant Singh @ Pinku And 15 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav,Ankit Kumar Sahu Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶4

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

¶5

By way of the present application the applicants have made a prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No.9354 of 2019 (State Vs. Prashant Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.268 of 2018, under Sections 147, 186, 353, 427 and 504 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 as well as Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have falsely been implicated in the present matter as they are not supporter of Bhartiya Janta Party, the Ruling Party, and they are Corporater in Nagar Nigam, Varanasi. He further submitted that the applicants never damaged any government property including the chairs of 'Sadan', as alleged and the car of the Mayor and without any proper investigation charge sheet in routine manner was submitted against the applicants. Therefore, charge sheet as well as impugned proceedings pending against applicants are bad.

¶7

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that in the

¶8

FIR and in the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is a specific allegation against the applicants that they damaged the government property and as well as the car of the Mayor and therefore, charge sheet against them was rightly submitted and the present application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

¶9

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

¶10

The applicants are the Corporator in Nagar Nigam, Varanasi and in the FIR and in the statement recorded during investigation there is specific allegation against them that they damaged the public property, like, chairs and tables etc. and also damaged the car of the Mayor, therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that prima faice no cognizable offence against the applicants is made out.

¶11

The argument of the learned counsel for the applicants that as the applicants are not the supporter of Bhartiya Janta Party, the Ruling Party, therefore, they have falsely been implicated in the present matter, could not be appreciated at this stage and it is settled that at this stage defence taken by the applicants cannot be appreciated as mini trial is neither possible nor permissible. As FIR of the present case and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. prima facie discloses cognizable offence against applicants, therefore, in my considered view, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 4.7.2022/SKM

¶13

Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.07.04 18:41:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prashant Singh @ Pinku and 15 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Singh @ Pinku and 15 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rohit Gupta @ Golu Vs State of U.P.

Mugeesudeen @ Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Reeta Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Gangadhar Pandey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ahmad Raja Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another