Dismissed

Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2024A482/1557/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash a charge sheet and cognizance order in an affray case, the High Court dismissed the plea. Noting that the investigation was complete and a charge sheet was filed, the court held no case for interference existed.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash charge sheet and cognizance order under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed.

Ajay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:84314

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1557 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ajay Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akansha Dubey,Pradeep Kumar Rai,Prakarsh Pandey,Praveen Kumar Shukla

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Vakalatnama filed by Ms. Anita Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 2 is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.

¶9

The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 22.06.2022 as well as cognizance order dated 24.06.2022 passed in Case No. 63642 of 2022 arising out of F.I.R. No. 651 of 2021, under Section 395 I.P.C., P.S. Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow and its entire proceedings.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was some money dispute in between the parties, but only with the intention to make pressure on the applicant, the F.I.R. No. 651 of 2021 was lodged on the basis of concocted facts. It is vehemently submitted that initially, the charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating OfÏcer under Section 395 I.P.C. only against the applicant, though no offence under Section 395 I.P.C. can be said to be made out against one person. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order for taking cognizance of the said charge sheet as well as summoning order are bad in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be quashed.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 vehemently oppose the prayer of the

¶12

applicant and submit that at the initial stage, the applicant was taken into custody. Thereafter, the investigation was going on and the involvement of the applicant along with other accused was found and charge sheet was submitted against the applicant. It is further submitted that as the rest of the accused persons were absconding, proper procedure was adopted for them. Later on, charge sheet was also submitted against four accused persons and in such circumstances, the cognizance taken by the trial court against the applicant cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. It is also submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed and the evidence collected by the Investigating OfÏcer cannot be evaluated at this stage and, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. In support of their submission, learned counsel for the opposite parties rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.B.I. Vs. Aryan Singh, 2013 SCC OnLine SC 379 .

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 and going through the contents of the application as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that an accident was taken place, in pursuance of which, F.I.R. was lodged on an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is further evident that after investigation, involvement of the applicant and others was found and the applicant was taken into custody. It is also evident that the charge sheet has also been submitted against the applicant and since rest of the accused persons were absconding, proceedings under Section 82, 83 Cr.P.C. were initiated against them and thereafter, charge sheet was also filed against four persons.

¶14

In such circumstances, no case for interference is made out. The application, accordingly, stands dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.12.2024 VKS

¶16

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

Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

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

Similar cases

Mishri Lal Vs Ram Naresh Mishra and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Mishra and Ors. Vs Tausif Mustafa and Ors.

Ajit Kumar Chaturvedi Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Poone and Anr.

Hari Om Srivastava @ Shani and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt) Lko. and Another

Dashrath Maurya @ Dashrath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Vishwajeet @ Vishwajeet Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another