Dismissed

Anil Kumar Jain Alias Chintu Jain and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2023A482/16083/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging dismissal of discharge petition dismissed. Court held no jurisdictional error or illegality in lower court rejecting discharge as sufficient material existed for prosecution, referencing Tarun Jit Tejpal case; appeal fails.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; impugned order rejecting discharge application upheld.

Anil Kumar Jain Alias Chintu Jain and Another Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16083 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Jain Alias Chintu Jain And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tej Om Prakash Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Tej Om Prakash Gupta, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging order dated 13.5.2022 passed by Judge Village Court, Tundala, Firozabad in Case No. 234 of 2020 (State Vs. Anil Kumar and others), under Section 507 IPC, P.S. Tundala, District Firozabad, whereby the discharge application filed by applicants in terms of 239 Cr. P. C. has been rejected as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned Case, now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad.

¶7

With reference to the material on record, the learned counsel for applicants submits that prosecutrix has not been consistent in her statements. He, further, submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in above mentioned criminal case on account of previous enmity.

¶8

It is thus contended that present prosecution is not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of Court. In view of above, Court below erred in rejecting the discharge application filed by applicants.

¶9

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application. He submits that subsequent to the F.I.R. giving rise to present criminal proceedings, Investigating Officer proceeded with the statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr. P. C. He examined the first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C., who have supported prosecution case. On the aforesaid premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that at this stage, it cannot be that prosecution story is false and there is no material on record to support the prosecution of applicants. Referring to the three Judges judgement in Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa, (2020) 17 SCC, 556 , he submits that prosecution can be maintained even in case of grave suspicion. The learned A.G.A. thus submits that no interference is warranted by this Court in present application.

¶10

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

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that Court below has rejected the discharge application filed by applicants on the ground that sufficient material exists for continuing the prosecution of applicant. In the absence of any statutory bar or lack of jurisdiction with Court below to take cognizance and the facts as noted above, no illegality has been committed by Court below in rejecting the discharge application.

¶12

In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds that Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the order impugned.

¶13

Consequently, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 4.1.2023 HSM

¶16

Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Kumar Jain Alias Chintu Jain and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Jain Alias Chintu Jain and Another 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

Krishna and 4 Others 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

Anuj and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another