Dismissed

Rakesh Kumar and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2024A482/10167/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the trial court's order rejecting a discharge application, the Court held that defence material cannot be entertained at the discharge stage. Finding no illegality in the impugned order, the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.

Rakesh Kumar and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:80694

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10167 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Jaikaran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

¶7

The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 03.07.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 11857 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 185 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Jagatpur, District Raebareli.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the marriage of brother of the applicants, namely, Sohan Lal Patel was solemnized with Asha Verma (deceased) and due to some trivial issues in between them, the F.I.R. was lodged dragging all the in-laws. It is further submitted that the charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer and during the pendency of the trial, Asha Verma died in an accident. Challenging the said charge sheet, earlier an Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 6335 of 2023 was filed by the applicants, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.05.2024 with the direction to the applicants to move appropriate application for discharge. In pursuance of the said order, application for discharge was filed by the applicants. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons, but neither the Investigating Officer nor the trial court considered the aforesaid facts at the time of deciding the discharge application and rejected the same in mechanical manner. It is, thus, submitted that indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicants and submits that at the time of deciding the discharge application, scope is very limited and, in case, there is suspicion of involvement, then discharge application cannot be allowed. It is, thus, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, discharge application as well as impugned order passed by the trial court and other relevant documents, it is evident that the defence has been placed in the form of discharge application and admittedly, the defence of the applicants cannot be entertained at the stage of discharge.

¶11

In view of above, there is no illegality in the impugned order. The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 28.11.2024 VKS

¶13

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rakesh Kumar and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Smt. Naseema Khatoon and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs and Another

Ramdeen Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Ragini Tiwari and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Sectt. Lko and Another

Pankaj Prakash vs Chairman Cum Managing Director, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Deputy G.M.

Intezar Husain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ashok Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another