Dismissed

Shanti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2024/627/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Special Judge's rejection of a petition for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Court upheld the rejection due to a contradiction in the incident dates and the absence of specific injury details in the medical report. The appeal was deemed misconceived.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the order rejecting the Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application was dismissed; the order is final.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:18015

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 627 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Shanti Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ravindra Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Piyush Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant appeal has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.12.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Crl. Misc. Case No. 133 of 2022 U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station- Bandhuakalan, District- Sultanpur, by which the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by appellant has been rejected.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial court rejected the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the most mechanical manner without considering the medico legal report of the injured person. It is, thus, submitted that indulgence of this Court is required.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of appellant. He submits that the impugned order clearly depicts that in the application that was given to Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur, the date and time of the incident is mentioned as 03.12.2021 at about 9:00 P.M., but in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant, the date and time of the incident is mentioned as 02.12.2021 at about 09:00 P.M., hence, there is a contradiction in the date of the incident. He also submits that police officers of the concerned police station submit a report by which it is informed that no such incident took place.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. drew attention of this Court on medico legal report of appellant, which is annexed as Annexure No. 02 dated 15.12.2021, in which delay has not been explained. He also submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by learned trial court.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the

¶12

appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, impugned order, application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., copies of applications provided by learned counsel for the appellant which were filed before the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur and Additional Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that in the aforesaid applications given to the police officials, the date and time of the incident is mentioned as 03.12.2021 at about 09:00 P.M., but the date and time in the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by appellant is mentioned as 02.12.2021 at about 09:00 P.M. The aforesaid medico legal report reveals that the medical of the appellant was conducted on 15.12.2021, but there is no opinion mentioned in the prescription prepared by the doctor related to duration and cause of injury. There is a contradiction in the date of incident as per the contents of application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as well as complaint moved before the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur. Thus, there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court.

¶13

With the above observations, this Court is of the view that the instant appeal is misconceived and accordingly stands dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 28.2.2024 Arpan

¶15

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

Shanti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 6 Others

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

Maheshwari Dayal Pandey vs Sri Prem Chand Yadav, District Education Officer, Gonda and Others

Dr. Sandeep Pathak vs Sri Syham Sunder Singh, Regional Higher Education Officer, Kanpur and Others

Charan Yadav @ Guddu Kumar vs Union of India Thru. Director General Directorate Revenue Intelligence New Delhi

Khalid Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Ranjeet Kumar (in Summoning Order Ranjeet) Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Akash Alias Kariya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Lko.