Partly allowed

Jamaluddun @ Jammal and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jun 2022A482/7980/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order partly allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under Section 452 IPC. The court held that the summoning order and charge sheet were based on surmises and conjectures, as later statements alleging offences inside houses contradicted the initial FIR and site plan showing no such houses.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet was quashed to the extent of Section 452 IPC; the summoning order and entire proceedings under that section were quashed.

Jamaluddun @ Jammal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7980 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jamaluddun @ Jammal And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aijaz Ahmad Khan

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the summoning order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Chakia, Chandauli and the charge sheet dated 31.05.2021 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1069 of 2021, Case Crime No. 44 of 2021, under Sections 34, 147, 148, 323, 336, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. Police Station Shahabganj, District Chandauli pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chakia, Chandauli.

¶7

At the time of argument, learned counsel for the applicants confined his arguments to quash the summoning order up to Section 452 I.P.C. only and has prayed that neither in the first information report there is any allegation of committing offence inside the house of any person nor the first informant/injured has mentioned the offence regarding Section 452 I.P.C. in his first statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 16.05.2021. In the site plan also house of Meraj Ahmad is not shown. It is alleged by the first informant in his additional statement dated 24.05.2021 for the first time that when he entered in the house of Meraj Ahmad being chased by the accused persons he was thrashed inside the house also. Thus, it is argued that neither in the first information report nor in the first statement of Lukman/injured there is any allegation of committing any offence inside the house of Meraj Ahmad. So the prayer is made to quash the summoning order and charge sheet regarding Section 452 I.P.C.

¶8

It is argued by the learned A.G.A. as well as by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that Lukman Ahmad in his additional statement dated 24.05.2021 has stated that when he was being chased by the accused persons he entered in the house of Meraj Ahmad and was thrashed there also. Meraj Ahmad in his statement dated 24.05.2021 has reiterated the fact of thrashing Lukman Ahmad by the accused persons in his

¶9

house also. Thus, it is argued by the learned A.G.A. that the first information report is not an encyclopedia wherein all the facts are necessary to be mentioned. As in the additional statement of the injured it has come that he was thrashed inside the house of Meraj Ahmad so the prayer regarding quashing of the summoning order, charge sheet and the proceedings under Section 452 I.P.C. has no force.

¶10

It is true that the first information report is not the encyclopedia but if we go through the record, the incident is admittedly dated 13.05.2021. The statement of first informant Lukman Ahmad has been recorded on 16.05.2021. Both in the first information report and in the first statement of the injured there is no mention of his thrashing out in the house of Meraj Ahmad. On 24.05.2021 i.e. after 09 days of the incident for the first time the applicant has disclosed the fact of thrashing him inside the house of Meraj Ahmad. Meraj Ahmad has also supported the statement of Lukman and the reason of not mentioning this fact in the first information report is disclosed by the first informant that due to tension and nervousness he could not mention this fact in the first information report.

¶11

If we go through the statement of Meraj Ahmad and the second statement of the injured, both of them have mentioned in their statements dated 24.05.2021 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the first informant Lukman Ahmad/injured was thrashed inside the house of Meraj Ahmad also. There is one more statement of witness Mahfooj Alam recorded on the same date i.e. 24.05.2021, he has mentioned in the statement that Lukman was being thrashed by the accused persons to save his life he entered in the house of Mahfooj Alam. In that house also he was thrashed by the accused persons. Thus, the statement of Mahfooj Alam, Meraj Ahmad and Lukman Ahmad all dated 24.05.2021 seem to be contradictory of the version of first information report and the first statement of Lukman Ahmad dated 16.05.2021. In the first information report and in the first statement of Lukman Ahmad there is version of Lukman being thrashed by the accused persons only on the road, while in the statement of Mahfooj Alam and Meraj Ahmad dated 24.05.2021 both the witnesses have mentioned that the victim Lukman Ahmad was thrashed in the house of Meraj Ahmad and Mahfooj Alam both. In this connection site plan is important wherein only vacant plot of Meraj Ahmad is shown. There is neither any house of Meraj Ahmad nor that of Mahfooj Alam. This fact clearly shows that the incident of thrashing Lukman Ahmad by the accused persons can be said to have taken place on the road only.

¶12

Thus, in my opinion the order summoning the accused persons

¶13

under Section 452 I.P.C. is out of record and is based on surmises and conjectures. Thus, the summoning order, charge sheet and the entire proceedings under Section 452 I.P.C. are liable to be quashed.

¶14

Hence, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed partly. The charge sheet filed in Case Crime No. 44 of 2021 against the accused persons is quashed to the extent of Section 452 I.P.C. and consequently the summoning order and the entire proceedings regarding Section 452 I.P.C. are also quashed.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.6.2022 gp

¶16

Digitally signed by GANESH PRAKASH Date: 2022.06.07 09:20:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jamaluddun @ Jammal and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamaluddun @ Jammal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another

Raghuveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ruchi Mishra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Seema Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdish Tiwari and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saleem Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others