Dismissed

Irshaad @ Munna v. the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2023/7647/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a quashing Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court dismissed the application, holding that the complaint and FIR contained different allegations and there was no illegality in the impugned summoning and revisional orders.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, and the impugned summoning order and revisional order were maintained.

Irshaad @ Munna Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:81276

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7647 of 2023 Applicant :- Irshaad @ Munna Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Shukla,Mohammad Mudassir Saleem,Prachi Shukla

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satendra Nath Rai

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶8

This application has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 23.02.2023 passed in Case No. 1365 of 2022, under Sections 452, 506 I.P.C. as well as order dated 12.07.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 128 of 2023.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complaint in question was filed on 11.11.2021 with the allegation that on 23.06.2021, the applicants forcibly entered into the house of respondent no. 2 at 1.30 p.m. armed with lathi, danda and country made pistol with the intention to take possession over the property and in the said incident, cash as well as other house hold articles were looted. Thereafter, an application was also moved by respondent no. 2 for lodging of the F.I.R. on 01.05.2023 before S.H.O., Khargupur, District Gonda, on which, F.I.R. No. 137 of 2023 was lodged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Khargupur, District Gonda, in which, final report was submitted after detail investigation. Thereafter, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was also moved for lodging of the F.I.R., which is treated as a complaint case. i.e., Case No. 1365 of 2022 (supra). It is also submitted that one F.I.R. No. 45 of 2023 was lodged under Sections 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 419, 420 I.P.C. from the applicant's side against the private respondent, in which, investigation is still pending.

¶10

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is

¶11

that the genesis of the dispute is one house, in relation of which, civil dispute is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gonda and the impugned proceedings have been initiated only with the intention to make pressure on the applicant. It is vehemently submitted that two proceedings, one by way of F.I.R. and another by way of complaint, cannot be initiated. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that in both the cases, allegations are entirely different. In the F.I.R., basically the allegations are for interpolation in the record, however, in the present complaint, allegation was for taking away house hold articles and also taking possession over the property in question by the associates of private respondent. It is also submitted that even in relation to same incident, one complaint as well as one F.I.R. has been lodged, then also as per the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C., trial of both the cases can be clubbed and run simultaneously. It is lastly submitted that the revision has already been dismissed by the revisional court and there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below. It is, thus, submitted that the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that in the complaint, the allegations are entirely different from the details of the incident mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also evident that the facts mentioned in the complaint, are also narrated in the aforesaid F.I.R. In view of above facts and circumstances, there is no illegality in the orders passed by the court below.

¶14

The application is misconceived and stands dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 7.12.2023 VKS

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Irshaad @ Munna v. the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irshaad @ Munna v. the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko. 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

Petr Novotny and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Dept. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Gautam Rawat Thru. His Father Sri Naresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Idrish Khan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mohd. Arif and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

X Thru. His Natural Guardian Father, Ramesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Others

Ashish Kumar and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.