Dismissed

Krishna and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2023A227/254/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the rejection of a discharge application, the Allahabad High Court held that the learned Court correctly rejected it as witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. supported the prosecution story, and no illegality was found.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed holding that no interference was warranted as there was evidence to support the prosecution case.

Krishna and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 254 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Krishna And 4 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar,Rajeev Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. R.K.Rai, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

At the very outset, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the scope of writ petition be confined only to the legality or otherwise of the order dated 29.10.2021, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No. 8870 of 2020 (State Vs. Smt. Krishna and Others), under sections 147, 323, 354, 504, 506, 511 IPC, Police StationIndirapuram, District Ghaziabad, whereby discharge application filed by applicant pursuant to order dated 1.9.2021, passed by this Court has been rejected.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant submits that present criminal proceedings are not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of Court. In the submission of learned counsel for applicant, civil dispute is already pending between the parties. Present criminal proceedings have been engineered only to gain mileage in the pending civil dispute between the parties. He therefore submits that present criminal proceedings being malicious, therefore, the discharge application ought to have allowed by Court below. Court below on a parochial view of the matter has rejected the discharge application which is illegal. Consequently, the impugned order is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶8

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application. He submits that the law with regard to discharge either in terms of Sections 227 and 234 Cr.P.C. has been crystallized in three judges Bench judgement in Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa, (2020) 14 SCC 556. In the aforesaid judgement it has also been held that even in the case of grave suspicion, Referring to the order impugned in present application, he submits that Court below has recorded a categorical finding that witnesses examined under section 161 Cr.P.C have supported the F.I.R. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that there is no evidence to support the prosecution of applicants or the prosecution case is false. The

¶9

issue as to whether on the basis of evidence collecting by Investigating Officer, applicants can be convicted or not is not required to be answered at the time of deciding the discharge claimed by petitioner. It is thus urged that no interference is warranted by this Court.

¶10

When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶11

Having heard the the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that no illegality has been committed by Court below in rejecting the discharge application filed by applicant. Witnesses examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. by Investigating Officer have supported the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. At this stage, it therefore cannot be said that prosecution case is false or there is no evidence to support the prosecution of applicant.

¶12

In view of above, application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.1.2023

¶15

Arshad

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishna and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vyshal Narayan Maheshwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manveer Vs State of U.P and 9 Others

Firoz and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Unique Medicare Products through Its Proprioter Jamal Siddiqui and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun Rana Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinanath Prasad and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others