Dismissed

Pawan Kumar Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. and Anothers

Allahabad HC23 Jun 2023A227/6073/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court bench dismissed a writ petition seeking to set aside the revisional order taking cognizance. The court upheld the revisional court and magisterial orders, noting they were reasoned and lawful, while observing that objections to a charge-sheet are factual matters for trial, not the cognizance stage.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed to set aside the impugned orders dismissing the revision and taking cognizance was dismissed.

Pawan Kumar Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:128203

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6073 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Pandey And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anothers Counsel for Petitioner :- Shweta Nishad,Chandan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned AGA for State.

¶7

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to set aside the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Criminal Revision No.215 of 2022 (Pawan Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and another), whereby the revisional Court has dismissed the revision filed against the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by A.C.J.M., Kasya, Kushinagar in Case Crime No.421 of 2022 (State Vs. Pawan Dubey and another) under Sections 323, 354B, 427 I.P.C., P.S. Kasya, District Kushinagar, the learned Magistrate by this order has rejected the objections filed against the charge-sheet dated 19.07.2022 by the petitioners-accused and has taken cognizance on the charge-sheet submitted by police.

¶8

The learned counsel for petitioners contended that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated. No such incident as alleged in the F.I.R. has ever happened. The real fact is that some dispute of land between petitioners and respondent no.2 is going on and only to harass and humiliate the petitioners, a false and concocted F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent no.2, namely, Shashi Devi. Several villagers, namely, Ramavatar, Ramnet Patel, Chandrajeet, Ram Nagina, Nand Kishor, Markande Dubey. Sanjay Verma have given affidavits that petitioners have been falsely implicated due to land dispute which is mentioned in C.D. No.7. The Investigating Officer without proper investigation submitted the charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate without considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶9

case, has taken cognizance. It is further contended that as per C.D.R., the location of the petitioners were eight kilometers away from the place of occurrence at the time of incident as they have gone for shopping in relation to marriage ceremony to be held in the family. It is next contended that the injured herself has gone to C.H.C., Kasya and get herself medically examined and medical examination reveals that all the injuries are simple in nature, there is no independent eye-witness against the petitioners. The disputed land belongs to the Gaon Sabha and not to the respondents and the trees also belong to the Gaon Sabha. No photograph has been taken by the Investigating Officer. The present criminal custodies are ex-facie mala fide and are being used as a weapon of torture. As such, the present criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. The impugned order is illegal and improper and against the principles of law. The impugned order being cryptic having been passed without application of mind and it is arbitrary and misuse of power. The learned counsel for respondents and the revisional court have known the facts that the earlier complaint was dismissed without liberty to file afresh.

¶10

The learned AGA submitted that an F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioners with regard to incident dated 31.05.2022 with the allegations that they assaulted the complainant Shashi Devi and her mother Savitri Devi and both have suffered injuries in this incident, their medico legal reports are part of the case diary. After due investigation and on the basis of cogent evidence, Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners. The objections submitted by the petitioners against the charge-sheet have no legal base and the points raised in the objections are matters of trial. The learned Magistrate being satisfied with prima facie case, has taken cognizance rejecting the objections. The revisional court has not find any illegality in the order of cognizance. Both the impugned orders are elaborate and reasoned one, there is no illegality in them.

¶11

The F.I.R. of this case has been lodged on 02.06.2022 with regard to the incident which occurred on 31.05.2022 alleging therein that the petitioners have assaulted the complainant Shashi Devi and her mother Savitri Devi with bat. The

¶12

complainant and her mother have been medically examined and in their medico legal reports, there are external injuries. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the complainant Shashi Devi, the injured and other witnesses and has submitted charge-sheet on the basis of evidence collected during course of investigation. The petitioners have filed objection against the charge-sheet at the time of cognizance. There is no provision in Criminal Procedure Code which confers any right on the petitioners to file objections against a charge-sheet at the time of taking cognizance. Further, the objections filed against the charge-sheet are of factual in nature which is a matter of trial and which cannot be considered at the time of cognizance. The learned Magistrate by detailed and reasoned order has rejected objections and has taken cognizance, there is no illegality in this order. The learned revisional Court has also appreciated the entire facts and evidence and has rightly dismissed the revision. Both the orders are elaborate and well reasoned, there is no illegality in both the impugned orders.

¶13

The petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 23.6.2023 SP/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pawan Kumar Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Taufeeq @ Maunu Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Gaur Vs State of U.P.

Kashmir Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ashwani Alias Soni Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Savitri Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Gond Vs State of U.P. and Another