Applicant sought quashing of charge sheet and cognizance order for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, arguing malicious prosecution over a property dispute. Court found a prima facie case from the FIR, Section 161 statements and charge sheet, and dismissed the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:124469
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(Sl No.3)
Court No. - 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23955 of 2024
Applicant :- Dharmendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar,Saurabh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anish Kumar Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the Charge Sheet dated 29.03.2024 as well as the cognizance order dated 19.04.2024 in Case No. 095 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Ankit @ Sanjay and Others) u/S 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Saurikh, District- Kannauj, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhibramau, District- Kannauj.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was a property dispute between the parties for which the instant case has been registered by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant herein, which is nothing but a malicious prosecution on the part of the opposite party no.2. It is further stated that subsequent to the aforesaid incident, a revenue proceedings under Section 16 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, have also been initiated by the applicant herein against the son of the opposite party no.2. Admittedly, there was a property dispute between the parties, therefore, the instant case has been registered by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant herein. In view thereof, learned counsel for the applicant seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant case.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the state submits that the revenue proceedings were initiated subsequent to the registration of the F.I.R. by the opposite party no.2. Therefore, the possibility of happening of the incident cannot be ruled out,
and from the narration of the facts as narrated in the F.I.R. and the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it can't be said that no such incident has ever taken place and the Investigation Officer (IO) after due investigation has found a prima facie case against the applicant herein and the Magistrate, having found a prima facie case against the applicant has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant herein for the aforesaid offences.
5. Having heard the rivals submissions made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case it is apparent that for an incident dated 12.03.2024, which was promptly reported by the opposite party no.2, the instant F.I.R. was lodged 13.03.2024. It is admitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there was a property dispute between the parties, therefore, possibility of the incident as narrated in the F.I.R. cannot be overruled and from the F.I.R. as well as statements under Section161 Cr.P.C., coupled with the charge-sheet a prima facie case has been made out against the applicant, therefore, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant herein.
6. Therefore, since a prima facie case has been made out in the opinion of this court as well, therefore, no interference is called for in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the judgements of the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), Eicher Tractor Ltd. (supra) and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 , and the instant application is accordingly dismissed .
7. This Court appreciates the efforts made by learned counsel for the applicant.
Order Date :- 2.8.2024 Shubham Arya
(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)
Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet dated 29.03.2024 and cognizance order dated 19.04.2024 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC should be quashed on the ground that the case arose from a property dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhajan LalRelied on¶6
Bhajan Lal (supra)
Eicher Tractor Ltd.Relied on¶6
Eicher Tractor Ltd. (supra)
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and OthersRelied on¶6
2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dharmendra Singh
State of U.P.
Opposite Party No.2
Anish Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
