Criminal applicant prayed for quashing of summons and complaint regarding alleged murder accused false implication of accident. Court held it cannot resolve factual disputes at this stage and rejected the application.
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash summoning order and criminal complaint proceedings rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38306 of 2022
Applicant :- Pintu And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi,Girja Shanker Sen,Krishna Dutt Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ganesh Shankar Patel
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent.
The prayer is made by the learned counsel for the applicants to quash the summoning order dated 05.09.2022 as well as the entire proceeding of Criminal Complaint No.10746 of 2021 (Satya Prakash Vs. Pintu and others) under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Bilsi, District Budaun.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that they have been falsely implicated. They had lodged an F.I.R. on 11.06.2021 u/s 279, 338, 304-A, 427 I.P.C. that on 05.06.2021 from the marriage ceremony of the daughter of Kunwarpal, Rohit took the son of the first informant Ram Singh, namely, Rahul along with him, on the way their motorcycle was dashed with an unknown utility vehicle which resulted into injuries to Rahul the son of the first informant Rahul and Rohit. Rohit is said to have succumbed to the injuries.
It is submitted that after investigation, the final report was submitted by police and during investigation, an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by father of the deceased Rohit, which was rejected vide order dated 11.08.2021. Later on, 17.08.2021, the father of the deceased, Rohit filed a complaint wherein all the applicants have been summoned to face trial u/s 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C. It is submitted that a case of accident is given the colour of murder. The post mortem report does not support the version of the father of the deceased Rohit. InjuredRahul has also given a statement in support of the version of accident. Due to village rivalry they have been falsely implicated. Hence, the prayer is made to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.10746 of 2021 (Satya Prakash Vs. Pintu and others), under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 I.P.C. Police Station Bilsi, District Budaun.
Prayer is also made to quash the summoning order dated
05.09.2022 in the above mentioned case.
Prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and it is submitted that at the time of incident, he went to the police station to get his F.I.R. lodged, but his F.I.R. was not lodged. So he moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was rejected on 11.08.2021 then, he had filed a complaint on 17.08.2021 against the present applicants and vide order dated 05.09.2022, the applicants have been summoned by the trial court to face trial under above mentioned sections.
From the perusal of the record, we may note that the son of the opposite party no.2 has admittedly expired in the incident, whether this incident was an accident as alleged by the applicants or it was a pre-planned murder as alleged by the opposite party no.2, would be decided after the evidence on record which is out of purview of the jurisdiction of the court at this stage of the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
As per the complaint, there is a version of committal of the murder of the son of the opposite party no.2 by the present applicants and the summoning has been made under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C. cognizable offence is said to have been committed.
This Court is not supported to enter into a factual dispute or collect factual evidence regarding the case. The argument of the applicants's counsel do not inspire confidence.
Hence, the application of the applicants u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected .
Order Date :- 30.1.2023 Shivangi
Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order and criminal complaint proceedings is sustainable.
Whether the present stage of proceeding permits the court to decide factual disputes between conflicting versions of the incident.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Pintu And 4 Others
State of U.P.
Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
Shivangi Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
