Quashed

Amit Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Feb 2024/1181/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the applicant’s application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned order rejecting his discharge petition. The court held that proceedings based on an alleged recovery of a pair of anklets were untenable as they were not mentioned in the FIR and the complainant did not claim them or seek their release.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 28.07.2023 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur in Case No. 5357 of 2020 rejecting discharge application is quashed.

Amit Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17295

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1181 of 2024 Applicant :- Amit Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Upendra Kumar Awasthi, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyanendra Singh, the learned A.G.A appearing before the State.

¶6

By means of the instant application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has challenged the validity of an order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur in Case No. 5357 of 2020, whereby the application for discharge of the applicant has been rejected.

¶7

In the F.I.R lodged on 16.06.2020, the informant had alleged that two motorcycle borne miscreants had snatched away the purse from her, which contained Rs.5,000/- cash, a gold chain, A.T.M card, a canteen card and some other articles.

¶8

The police claimed to have arrested some co-accused persons and on the basis of their custodial statement, a pair of anklets is said to have been recovered from the applicant.

¶9

The order dated 30.07.2020 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.11/Special Judge, N.D.P.S Act, Sitapur which has been annexed with the application indicates that the trial court has recorded that the recovery was made from the shop of the applicant. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant owns a jewellery shop and there were numerous pair of anklets in his shop. Although, there was no allegation of robbery of any pair of anklets in the F.I.R, in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, she included a pair of anklets also amongst the list

¶10

of articles that were kept in the robbed purse.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to an order dated 31.07.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur ordering release of the recovered goods in favour of the complainant/informant and in that application also, the complainant merely sought release of other articles but she did not sought release of the pair of anklets.

¶12

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that absence of mention of a pair of anklets in the F.I.R as also in the application for release of the recovered goods, indicates that no pair of anklets had been robbed from the complainant. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of a fake recovery shown by the police, which has not been witnessed by any independent person. The trial court has rejected the application for discharge on the ground that the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C mentiones a pair of anklets and the trial court has not adverted to the facts that the pair of anklets is not mentioned in the F.I.R and the complainant has not sought its release.

¶13

From the aforesaid facts, it appears that when the complainant had not alleged robbery of the pair of anklets from her and she has not claimed the recovered anklet to be her own and has not sought its release, the continuance of criminal proceedings against the applicant on the basis of alleged recovery of the pair of anklets which nobody claimed to be stolen, shall be an abuse of process of law.

¶14

Accordingly, the application is allowed and the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur in Case No. 5357 of 2020, is hereby quashed.

¶15

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 26.2.2024/Preeti.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Naseem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kailash Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 6 Others

Sajjad Hasan Masood Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko. and 2 Others

Sultan Hussain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Afasar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home)/Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow and 3 Others

Master X Thru. His Natural Guardian Mother Y Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others