Dismissed

Aamir v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2023A482/39035/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the High Court refused to quash the impugned charge sheet and cognizance order despite the applicant's claim of false implication and procedural irregularities, holding that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of charge sheet, cognizance order, and entire proceedings refused; applicant directed to file discharge application.

Aamir Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39035 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Aamir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhat Tripathi,Abhishek Mishra,Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application the applicant has challenged the order dated 21.2.2022 by which the applicant has been summoned to face trial, under section 307 I.P.C. and section 3/5A/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. 1960

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the F.I.R. in the instant case has been lodged on the basis of recovery memo wherein it is alleged that on 12.12.2019 while the police party was on patrolling duty an information was received from the informer that in a truck number of bulls have been loaded which are illegally being transported from Chitrakoot to Bihar.

¶8

On the basis of the said information, the police party reached at the place of incident however the truck driver tried to escape by running over the truck over the police party. The police personnel some how rescued them. In the said act, the truck driver lost control and was apprehended by the police.

¶9

During search, five persons were arrested on the spot, however, two persons taking the cover of darkness made their escape good.

¶10

On interrogation, the arrested persons disclosed their names to be Yogendra Yadav, Juber, Riyaz, Rizwan and Amir . They disclosed the names of the escaped persons to be Masooq and Akhtarwada. On making inspection of the truck, 19 bulls which

¶11

were stuffed in the truck were seized by the police and on the basis of the said recovery, recovery memo was prepared and the F.I.R. was registered vide case crime No. 372 of 2019 under section 307 I.P.C. and section 3/5A/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 and the applicant was remanded to judicial custody.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is wholly Innocent and have been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that in fact the applicant was not arrested from the spot and on 12.12.2019 at 10.50 hrs, Station OfÏcer Ghoorpur through his CUG number called the applicant on his mobile to meet him. Subsequently, when the applicant had gone to meet him and reached Ghoorpur, the place of incident the applicant was arrested and made an accused in the instant case. Thus, the arrest of the applicant in the instant case as shown at the place of incident is against the material on record.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that at the time of his arrest he was accompanied by his Gunner, however, he was asked to leave and the applicant was taken into custody.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the Investigating OfÏcer has not fairly and impartially investigated the instant case and illegally submitted charge sheet against the applicant on which learned magistrate has taken cognizance.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant has subsequently been released on bail. On appearance as per the provision of section 207 Cr.P.C. the copy of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused, however, certain relevant documents have not been provided to him as such the applicant moved an application before court below on 25.5.2022 to provide him Parcha NO.9 of

¶17

supplementary case diary and further moved an application dated 29.8.2022 reiterating that Parcha No. 9 of the supplementary case diary dated 24.08.2021 be furnished to him and if not available requisite enquiry for removing the said Parcha from the case diary be directed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that in fact under section 207 Cr.P.C. requisite document has not been furnished to him as such the cogniznace order be set-aside.

¶19

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the statement of the witnesses recorded during course of investigation, primafacie, offence is clearly made out against the applicant. As per the prosecution case, the applicant has been shown to be arrested from the spot though the applicant claims otherwise and further it is stated that certain documents which he wants to rely upon has not been furnished to him but on the said ground the entire proceedings can not be quashed at this stage when primafaice offence is clearly made out against the applicant.

¶20

Having considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the entire evidence and material on record collected during course of investigation, primafacie offence is clearly made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed questions of fact which can not be adjudicated upon by this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶21

At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶22

Moreover, the applicant had already been directed

¶23

to be released on bail and he has got right of discharge under Section 239, 245 or 227 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

¶24

At this stage, this Court is not in a position to weigh the factual matrix of the case properly and accused has a right to file a discharge application before the trial court and the trial court may decide his discharge application, if there is no evidence against him.

¶25

The prayer for quashing the impugned charge sheet, cognizance order as well as entire proceedings is therefore refused.

¶26

However, it is directed that in case the applicant files an application for discharge before the court below, the same be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the public prosecutor.

¶27

With the aforesaid directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

¶28

Order Date :- 17.1.2023 R

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAM ASARE MORYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aamir v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aamir 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

Smt. Kusum and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Gore @ Yogesh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mohd Afsar Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lal Singh @ Mahendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bablu Vs State of U.P and Another