Quashed

Bablu @ Harinam Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2024/6/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a summoning order. The Court clarified that the complaint involves different incidents, victims, and dates than a prior FIR, rejecting the argument that the delay indicates abuse of process. The application was rejected without a mini-trial.

What did the court decide?

Application No. 6 of 2024 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of summoning order and entire proceedings were rejected.

Bablu @ Harinam Singh and 3 Others Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:762

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Bablu @ Harinam Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Arun Kumar Verma, the learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶7

By means of the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 06.10.2023 along with entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint No. 47/2021, Sant Ram v. Bablu & Ors. filed by the opposite party no. 2, under Sections 354, 323, 325, 506 IPC & 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Kasimpur, District Hardoi pending before the learned Additional Session Judge/ FTC against offence woman, Hardoi.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that on 05.07.2020, an FIR was lodged by father of the applicants no. 1 & 2 against the four persons alleging that the accused persons had abused and assaulted the informant's brother, son and another person. On the same day an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 262 of 2020 was lodged against four persons, including the applicants no. 1 & 2 alleging that the accused persons had assaulted the complainant and another person because of the property dispute at about 08:00 a.m. on 05.02.2020. Subsequently, a complaint had been filed on 22.10.2021 regarding an incident that took place at about 07:00 a.m. on 05.07.2020 and it was alleged that the accused persons had molested the complainant's daughter and had abused and beaten up the complainant's wife and daughter.

¶9

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that when an FIR had been lodged previously, lodging of a complaint after more than 15 months regarding the same incident, is an abuse of the process of law. However, a bare perusal of the allegations levelled in the FIR and those levelled in the complaint establish the fallacy of the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the applicant as the incident

¶10

alleged in the FIR and the complaint are entirely different and the victims of the incident are also different. Therefore, the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint has been lodged regrading the incident for which an FIR had already been registered, is false and misleading and the same is accordingly turned down.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the allegations levelled in the complaint are false and the same have been cooked up in the period intervening the incident and the lodging of the complaint.

¶12

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 holds that while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. It does not require the prosecution/investigating agency to prove the allegations. While exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the Accused for which the Accused is required to be tried or not."

¶13

While deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot examine the correctness of the allegations and the same is left for being decided by the trial court after taking into evidence of the parties.

¶14

The application lacks merit and the same is accordingly rejected .

¶15

Order Date :- 4.1.2024 Pradeep/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bablu @ Harinam Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu @ Harinam Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Jitendra Pandey and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Faizabad and Ors.

Rohit Vishwakarma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Others

Dharmesh Kumar Vs Smt. Anita Kumari and Another

Satish Chandra Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Sumit Kumar Verma Thru. His Brother Manish Kumar Vs Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow and Another