This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash criminal proceedings alleging false implication. The application was dismissed as no ground for interference was found, despite reliance on the Kaptan Singh judgment regarding investigation material.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9125 of 2022
Applicant :- Nitin Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Antoher Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Shankar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Shiv Shankar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the charge sheet dated 6.9.2021 submitted in Case Crime No. 351 of 2021, under Section 67 Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2006, P.S. Kotwali, District Allahabad/Praygraj, the Cognizance Taking Order/summoning order dated 11.01.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in consequential Case No. 258 of 2022 (State Vs. Nitin Pandey), under Section 67A I.T. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Allahabad/Prayagraj as well as entire proceedings of aforementioned Criminal Case, now pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.
Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Applicant has been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. As such, applicant is being falsely prosecuted in aforementioned case crime number. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant contends that present criminal proceedings are not only illegal, but also an abuse of the process of the Court Consequently, same are liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. contends that after registration of aforementioned F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr. P. C. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined the first informant and other witnesses. On the basis of above as well as the other material collected by him during course of investigation, complicity of applicant was found to be established in the crime in question. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet dated 6.9.2021. Perusal of charge sheet goes to show that as many as three prosecution witnesses have been nominated
therein. It is thus contended by learned A.G.A. that at this stage, it cannot be said that the prosecution case is false or there is no evidence to support the prosecution case. He, therefore, submits that no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant.
Learned A.G.A. next contends that the entire material collected by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation has not been brought on record. Much emphasis has been laid to the report submitted by Cyber Cell. It is thus urged that in the absence of entire material collected by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, this Court need not examine the veracity of the proceedings pending before Court below. Learned A.G.A. has also placed reliance upon judgement of Apex Court in Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2021, SCC Online SC 580, wherein following has been observed in the last line of paragraph 25 of aforesaid judgement:-
"The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation"
When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material brought on record, this Court does find any good ground to interfere with the present application.
Present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.7.2022 HSM
Digitally signed by HARI SHANKER MISHRA Date: 2022.07.12 18:30:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash criminal proceedings where the applicant claims false implication despite the existence of a charge sheet and investigation material.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶11
Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2021, SCC Online SC 580 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nitin Pandey
State Of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
