Disposed

Avinesh Anihotri and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2024A482/21811/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings based on alleged false FIR was disposed of. Court refused quashing, noting it was appropriate to file for discharge at the trial stage. Applicants granted 30 days to move for discharge with material. Case dismissed/ruled as no ground for indulgence to quash proceedings immediately.

What did the court decide?

Refused to quash proceedings. Allowed applicants to move for discharge before trial court within 30 days.

Avinesh Anihotri and Another vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:128216

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21811 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Avinesh Anihotri And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been filed by the applicants with prayer to allow this application and set aside the entire criminal proceedings of Case NO. 1857 of 2023, Computer No. 153992023, under Sections 323, 506 IPC along with impugned charge sheet No. 264 of 2023 dated 23.9.2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 163 of 2023, Police Station Hathras Gate, District Hathras, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in this case opposite party no.2 is Pradhan and applicant no. 1 Avinesh Agnihotri is Purv-pradhan. There is enmity between both the parties. No any incident as mentioned in the F.I.R. occurred but with false allegations, present F.I.R. was lodged against them by the informant making allegation that the applicants pushed him from back side as a result he fell on the ground and sustained injury on his shoulder and right thumb. He lodged F.I.R. on 27.5.2023 but during medical examination no any external injury was found on his person and in x-ray report no any fracture was found on the right shoulder. In this way, the allegations made by the opposite party cannot be said to be proved. Further submitted that statements of witnesses have been recorded in which they stated that the incident took place on public place, and there are so many shops but no any statement of adjacent shopkeeper was recorded by the Investigating Officer. On previous occasion due to enmity, an F.I.R. was lodged against the brother of the applicant no. 1, in counterblast to that case which was lodged against the opposite party no.2 in which he is on bail. Present case has been registered only for making pressure on the applicants to withdraw the prosecution. The Investigating Officer also submitted charge sheet and the learned trial court took cognizance of the offence

¶9

without considering the material on record, therefore, request to quash the entire proceedings of the case including charge sheet and order of cognizance.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, applicants has not exaggerated the incident as is clear from the version of F.I.R. but he narrated the incident as it happened with him. On account of enmity, it cannot be said that the present F.I.R. was also lodged with false allegation. Further contended that the statement of opposite party no.2/informant was recorded during the course of investigation and also the doctor conducting medical examination. On the basis of absence of fracture, it cannot be said that the aforesaid incident did not take place. The veracity of statements of informant/injured and the doctor can only be decided during the course of trial but at this stage, it cannot be said to be false. It is also contended that applicants may have an option to move for discharge before the learned court concerned with their prayer at appropriate stage. Hence this application being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record, the version in the F.I.R., the Statement of injured and also the injury report, at this stage it cannot be said that incident did not take place and present F.I.R. was lodged with false version against them but it is only possible during the course of trial. There appears no any ground to grant indulgence in favour of the applicants. As a result prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the case is hereby refused.

¶12

However the applicants may have an option to move for discharge before the learned court concerned within a period of 30 days from today with their submissions that will be considered and disposed of according to law on the basis of material collected during investigation.

¶13

Accordingly, present application is disposed of finally.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.8.2024 Anurag Singh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Avinesh Anihotri and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinesh Anihotri and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aryan Gupta vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ashvanee Pratap Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Lavkush Kushwaha vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar Alias Arun Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Bangali and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Abdul Salam and 10 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others