Dismissed

Ashok Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2024A482/23498/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought to quash the charge-sheet and summoning order in a motor accident case involving Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The court found that the submissions raised questions of fact requiring trial court adjudication and held that prima facie a case of cognizable offence was made out, dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; proceedings not quashed.

Ashok Kumar Prajapati vs State of U.P. and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:165925

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23498 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aishwarya Goswami,Pawan Giri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 25.12.2023, cognizance and summoning order dated 1.6.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi in Case No.22419 of 2024 titled State v. Ashok Kumar Prajapati, arising out of Case Crime No.170 of 2023, under sections 279, 304-A IPC and section 3, 181, 196, 158(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, Police Station Aurai, District Bhadohi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case; the date of alleged incident is 19.7.2023, and the FIR was registered after a delay of 11 days; the applicant's name was surfaced on 5.9.2023 by placing reliance on an affidavit. He further submits that the police have falsely implicated the applicant to save the actual offender; after conducting botched up investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that applicant's name only surfaced at the last stage of the investigation without having any incriminating material against him.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that of course there is a delay of 11 days in registration of FIR. The complaint was filed after the death of victim on the complaint of the deceased's wife. Initially she had a confusion, but subsequently, during the investigation it has been revealed that it is the applicant's vehicle, which has caused the accident, therefore, the applicant's name has been added as an accused in the charge-sheet. On mechanical inspection, it revealed that it was the applicant's vehicle which had hit the deceased.

¶10

In the instant matter, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Similarly no such illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out in the impugned summoning order, so as to warrant any interference by this court in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and having gone through the material available on record, prima-facie , a case of cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant's involvement surfaced during the investigation on the statement of farmers, who had seen the occurrence of accident and subsequently disclosed to the I.O. about the offending vehicle. The

¶12

arguments of applicant's counsel needs to be tested during the trial, therefore, no case for quashing of the impugned proceedings is made out.

¶13

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.10.2024 Anil K. Sharma

¶15

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashok Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Prajapati 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jiya Lal vs State of Up and Another

Ram Pukar Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajkumar vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ramesh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Kanhaiya Jaiswal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another