Dismissed

Smt. Sunita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2024/979/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special leave petition dismissed. This court rejected an appeal challenging the trial court's order dismissing an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon additional accused, finding no infirmity or illegality. The court held the trial court rightly rejected the application as it aimed to falsely implicate accused contrary to prosecution witness statements. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No. 979 of 2024 dismissed.

Smt. Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:25004

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 979 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Smt. Sunita Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Lalu Prasad Bhatt,Rashmi Srivastava,Sachin

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Lalu Prasad Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Rafiya Farooqui, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The instant appeal has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 01.02.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Gonda in Case Crime No.484 of 2017, under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(D), 3(1)(Dh) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda whereby the learned court has dismissed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the learned court below for summoning the accused Neel Kumar Pal and Kusuma. He further submits that the investigating officer has expunged out the name of the aforesaid accused, however, their names have been taken by the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 during their examination-in-chief.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the application of the appellant has been dismissed by the learned trial court without considering the material evidence and testimony of prosecution witness, which is totally illegal and arbitrary. The impugned order is passed without application of judicial mind, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and he submits that the impugned order dated 01.02.2024 by which application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the appellant was rejected has been rightly passed. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The names of aforesaid accused have been expunged out by the Investigating Officer during the course of

¶12

investigation as no material was found against them and even the learned trial court has opined that there is material contradiction in the statement of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. It is just a ploy adopted by the appellant to falsely implicate the aforesaid accused by moving the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. There is no justification to summon the aforesaid accused in the present case.

¶13

After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties as well as after perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned court below has rightly rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the appellant before the learned trial court as the same is moved only with intention to falsely implicate the aforesaid accused. There is material contradiction in the statement of the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. Thus, this Court finds no proper justification to entertain the instant appeal and also to interfere in the impugned order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the learned court below as the same has been rightly passed and there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, it appears that the present appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed, which is accordingly dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 21.3.2024 Saurabh

¶16

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

Smt. Sunita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 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

Rumaisha Bano Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Parbhu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kishun Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Sekhar Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Krishna Kumar @ Munsi Vs State of U.P.

Kashif Ahmad Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others