Dismissed

Rajesh Raj Khanna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2024A482/1696/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi dismissed the application for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arising from a 1998 road accident. The Court held there were no good grounds to quash proceedings regarding an incident occurring 26 years prior, noting the inherent power cannot be used to hold a mini-trial on negligence.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking quashing of the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings was dismissed.

Rajesh Raj Khanna vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20896

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1696 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Raj Khanna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rinku Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

1. On 23.02.2024, the learned counsel for the applicant has sought adjournment to enable him to file a supplementary affidavit and on his request, the case was listed today as fresh. However, when the case has been taken up along with the cases listed as fresh, nobody is present to press the applicaiton. Therefore, the Court proceeds to decide the application after perusing the record with the assistance of the learned A.G.A.

¶7

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought quashing of the proceedings of charge-sheet dated 05.09.1998 filed in Crime No.226 of 1998 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A IPC as wll as entire proceedings arising out of Crime No.226 of 1998.

¶8

3. The FIR was lodged on 15.08.1998 stating that the applicant was driving a bus running under contract with Roadways Department, in a very fast speed and negligently and he did not accede to the passengers' request to drive the bus carefully. The bus hit a truck coming from opposite direction causing injuries to several passengers and one of the passengers died while being taken to a hospital.

¶9

4. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted on 15.08.1998.

¶10

5. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 15.08.1998 was filed on 21.02.2024 and there is no explanation for the delay in filing the application.

¶11

6. Although the learned counsel for the applicant had sought time to

¶12

file a supplementary affidavit bringing on record a copy of the order sheet of the trial court, but no such affidavit has been filed.

¶13

7. Quashing of the charge-sheet and the proceedings has been sought on the ground that the applicant was driving the bus carefully and the truck driver was not negligent.

¶14

8. The incident occurred because of negligence of the bus driver resulting death of a passenger and injuries to several others. The contention of the applicant that he was not negligent, cannot be gone into while deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the High Court cannot hold a mini trial at this stage. It has been stated in the affidavit that a non bailable warrant was issued against the applicant on 05.04.2014 yet the applicant did not participate in the proceedings of the trial or challenge the charge-sheet in a decade.

¶15

9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there is no good ground for invoking inherent power of this Court to quash the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings regarding the incident that had taken place about 26 years ago.

¶16

10. The application is dismissed for the aforesaid reasons.

¶17

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 7.3.2024 prateek

¶19

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

Rajesh Raj Khanna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Raj Khanna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. 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

Piyush Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vivek Pal, Thru. Father Om Prakash Pal Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Seema Jaiswaal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Naseem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kailash Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 6 Others

Sajjad Hasan Masood Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko. and 2 Others