Dismissed

Chandra Shekhar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2023A482/38286/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant sought to quash the trial court's order rejecting his prayer to summon a tahrir regarding 'enticing away' a minor. The High Court examined the chronology of reports, noting that the initial FIR was for 'missing' and that the term 'enticing away' was added by the police officer. The Court found no case to quash the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 is rejected.

Chandra Shekhar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38286 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Smt. Priyanka Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

By moving this application prayer is made to quash the order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the Special Judge (DAA), Farrukhabad in Special Sessions Trial No. 133 of 2020 (State Vs. Chandra Shekhar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 311 of 2020, under Sections 364A, 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Mohamadabad, District Farrukhabad.

¶8

By the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 the application dated 29.09.2022 of the applicant was rejected. By moving that application before the trial court prayer was made to summon the tehrir moved by the first informant at concerned police station before the incident. By pressing the same prayer, it is argued that as per general diary dated 13.10.2020 the victim aged 10 years was 'enticed away' by some unknown persons, so the report lodged regarding 'enticing away' the minor daughter of the first informant be summoned from the concerned court.

¶9

If we go through the First Information Report, which is registered as Case Crime No. 311 of 2020 dated 13.10.2020 at 22.06 hours there is version of the first informant that his 10 years old daughter was missing since 5.00 p.m. of the same day i.e. 13.10.2020 and on this information the first information report was registered at police station Mohammadabad, District Fatehgarh. Thus, as per learned counsel for the applicant, the missing report was registered as Case Crime No. 311 of 2020 but there must be one more report regarding 'enticing away' the daughter of the first informant, that report be summoned from the concerned police station.

¶10

It is further submitted that his application of the same effect was

¶11

wrongly rejected by the trial court.

¶12

If we go through the record, First Information Report in Case Crime No. 311 of 2020 dated 13.10.2020 was registered on the missing report of the first informant and after two days of lodging the First Information Report an application was moved by Ramu, the son of the first informant at the police station concerned that on 14.10.2020 at 12.30 p.m. a phone was received by his cousin Sujeet whereby ransom of Rs. 5.00 lacs was demanded through the mobile which was with the victim at the time she got missing. As per this application applicant – Ramu expressed his strong belief that Chandra Shekhar, his wife Geeta, brother of the Chandra Shekhar, Suresh Chandra and mother of Chandra Shekhar, Kusumlata had committed murder of his sister.

¶13

If we go through the statement of PW 1 wherein he has stated that he had moved two applications in the police station concerned. Learned counsel for the applicant based his arguments on this version of the opposite party no. 2 that he had moved two applications before police station concerned but if we go through the case diary, it is clearly mentioned therein that on the application wherein the allegation was of enticing away the 10 years old daughter of the first informant, an First Information Report was lodged as Case Crime No. 311 of 2020 under Section 363 IPC, which was registered at 22.06 hours on the same day. Though in the G.D. the word 'enticed away' has been added by the employee scribing G.D. but in the application moved by the first informant there is no allegation of enticing away the victim by anyone rather that application was moved with the version of missing and that missing report itself was lodged as an FIR at Case Crime No. 311 of 2020 by the police station concerned.

¶14

In my opinion by just adding the words 'enticed away' by the official of the police station, it cannot be said that there were two applications moved by the first informant; one regarding missing of the girl and other regarding 'enticing away' the girl. Otherwise also, there is one more application dated 15.10.2020 moved by Ramu, son of the first informant, wherein he has mentioned regarding demand of ransom and in that application only for the first time the name of the accused persons were disclosed that the applicant Ramu had strong belief that those named persons in his application had murdered his sister. As the first informant is a lame villager, if regarding one application moved by him and another application moved by his son, he stated in his evidence in the court that two applications were moved at police station concerned it did not mean that he himself had moved two applications or on both

¶15

these applications the FIRs were lodged or the other application was regarding enticing away the daughter of the first informant. The trial court also in the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 has come to the conclusion that PW 1 only made the statement during his evidence that the report which he had lodged at the police station, is not available on record. After closing of the prosecution evidence the file is fixed for statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and as per finding of the trial court this application was moved by the accused persons just to linger on the proceedings.

¶16

In the opinion of the court, no case is made out to quash the impugned order dated 29.09.2022.

¶17

The application is misconceived, hence, rejected .

¶18

Order Date :- 3.4.2023 gp

¶19

Digitally signed by :- GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandra Shekhar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Shekhar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamshad Khan Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Ram Ashish Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gyanvendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mithai Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Javed Vs State of U.P. and Another

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