Dismissed

Amarnath Singh and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2024A482/23117/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings for assault and criminal intimidation. Court held no ground for quashing, refused prayer, but allowed bail possibility in 60 days per Supreme Court precedent and directed no coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. No coercive action to be taken. Application disposed of.

Amarnath Singh and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:126282

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23117 of 2024 Applicant :- Amarnath Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Yadav,Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.2343 of 2024 (State vs. Amarnath Singh and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C. pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia and further be pleased to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 27.03.2024 arises in Case Crime No.33 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Sikanderpur, District Ballia as well as order dated 24.05.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia in the aforesaid case.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in this case the applicants are innocent and have committed no offence but on account of enmity present F.I.R. was lodged against them. Further submitted that the applicants lodged an F.I.R. against the opposite parties as Crime No.360/2023 u/s 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. in which incident took place on 06.11.2023 at about 7 O'clock and applicants were beaten by the opposite party. The opposite parties lodged the present F.I.R. on 23.11.2023 on the basis of an application moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. showing the date of incident on the same day and also managed the medical report by making pressure on the doctor. It is also submitted that the statements of the witnesses were recorded by the I.O. but affidavits filed by them were not taken into consideration. Further submitted that the applicant nos.2 & 3 are sons of applicant no.1 who were working at Noida and Mumbai and were not present on the spot even though charge sheet has been filed against them also. The learned trial court did also not consider all these facts but took cognizance of the offence without applying its judicial mind, therefore, request to quash the entire proceedings of the case including charge sheet as well as order of cognizance.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case there was dispute between the parties in which on

¶9

the same day marpit took place in which the applicant side and the informant side both sustained injuries. The informant was also got medically examined in which there was fracture on his head that was the reason charge sheet was filed by the I.O. u/s 504, 323, 506, 325 I.P.C. and the learned trial court also took cognizance of the offence on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation. The statement of the witnesses were also recorded during the course of investigation in which there is involvement of the applicant nos.2 & 3 as stated by them. So far as the affidavits in favour of the applicant nos.2 & 3 are concerned, the same cannot be considered as evidence at this stage. The plea of alibi that applicant nos.2 & 3 were working at Noida and Mumbai can also not be taken into consideration at this stage but it can be proved before the learned trial court during the course of trial. In this way, this application being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

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 material collected during the course of investigation, the injury report and the statement of the informant and other witnesses those were present on the spot, there appears no any ground to quash the entire proceedings of the case including charge sheet as well as order of cognizance passed by the learned trial court concerned. The plea of alibi can only be taken into consideration during the course of trial. The veracity of the statement of the witness can also not be examined at this stage but it is possible only during the trial. Therefore, no indulgence can be granted in favour of the applicant and prayer for the same is hereby refused. However, applicants may have an option to move for discharge before the learned trial court with their submissions which shall be heard and decided by the learned court concerned after considering the material on record in accordance with law.

¶11

Further, if applicants appear and move bail application before the learned trial court within a period of 60 days from today, they may be enlarged on bail in light of the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another LL 2022 SC 577 decided on 11.07.2022 by Hon'be The Supreme Court.

¶12

In the meantime, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶13

Accordingly, this application is disposed of finally.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.8.2024/Ashok Gupta

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amarnath Singh and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarnath Singh and 2 Others v. State of Up 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

Shakeel Ahamad vs State of Up and 4 Others

Mahesh Prasad Shukla vs State of Up and 15 Others

Raka @ Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Nikhil Verma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Tayyab Khan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raju and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another