Dismissed

Shivam Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC2 May 2024/4037/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant moved unsuccessfully under S. 482 CrPC challenging the rejection of his discharge application. The High Court held that prima facie evidence existed and the defence was for trial, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed in the interests of justice as evidence supports prima facie commission of offence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34421

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4037 of 2024 Applicant :- Shivam Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that story narrated in the FIR is false and concocted. He has disputed the contents of the FIR and in his defence he has drawn attention of the Court towards various documents.

¶7

Learned AGA has opposed the petition submitting that material collected by the investigation as well as FIR discloses prima facie commission of offence. At the stage of framing of charge, only prima facie is to be seen.

¶8

Perused the record, so also the FIR and the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

¶9

A perusal of the FIR shows that both the applicant and the deceased met with each other on 24.02.2022 for the first time. On 02.03.2022, the deceased was called by the applicant at Indira Garden, Raibareli. She went without telling her family members and remained there with him for the whole day and in the evening she was dropped at Raibareli Railway Station by the petitioner and on the next day she was found at the Police Station. She was sent to Village Bakwara, P.S. Mill Area, Raibareli along with her father where on 22.03.2022, she fell ill and was admitted in District Hospital Raibareli where during treatment, she died. It has been alleged that the deceased

¶10

committed suicide due to refusal of marriage by the revisionist. The material collected by the investigating officer raises grave suspicion against the revisionist and thus, discharge application has been rightly rejected.

¶11

The defence taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be seen at the stage of trial when the evidence is led.

¶12

In find no illegality in the order impugned. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 2.5.2024 R.C.

¶14

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shivam Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. 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

Mohd. Sufiyan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Taufeeq Quraishi @ Mo Tavfik Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Jamid Ali @ Maiku Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Santram and Others vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Shivam Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Ram Sajeevan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another