Dismissed

Adesh Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2023A482/38657/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicant sought quashing of criminal proceedings alleging IPC offences and Section 67 I.T. Act violation. The Court found that disputed facts existed, holding that it lacked power to examine them under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The application was dismissed as it lacked merit under established precedents.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings and cognizance order quashed, application dismissed.

Adesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:201281

¶2

Court No. - 89

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38657 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Adesh Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 28.09.2021, against the applicant under sections 147, 498-A, 504, 323 I.P.C., cognizance/summoning order dated 03.06.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.5941 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.381 of 2021 (State vs. Adesh Sharma), under Sections 506 I.P.C. & 67 I.T.Act, PS Badalpur, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending in the Court of Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Investigating Officer has not collected any evidence to prosecute the applicant in the present case. Statement of the victim recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. is also not supported with the prosecution case. Cognizance taken by learned magistrate is without application of judicial mind and instant FIR has been lodged on account of prior dispute between the parties.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the contention raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that it is a disputed question of facts which cannot be examined at this stage.

¶10

Considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant and perused the entire records. From perusal of record, it cannot be said that no offence under Section 67 I.T. Act is made out. Submissions raised by learned by learned counsel for the applicant are disputed question of facts and sitting under 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction, this Court has no power to examine the facts.

¶11

In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.)

¶12

426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶13

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.10.2023 SKD

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Adesh Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adesh Kumar Sharma 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

Kuldeep Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

X Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shabnam Bano Vs State of U.P. and Another

Priya Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakuntala Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another