Disposed

Sanjay and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2024A482/24942/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under s. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash summoning order and charge sheet alleging offences under s. 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Court rejected prayer as veracity of witnesses and injuries support prosecution; citizens disqualified from civil disputes.

What did the court decide?

Application under s. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings refused. Applicant advised to seek discharge at appropriate stage.

Sanjay and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:142157

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24942 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjay And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 08.04.2024 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Chakiya, District Chandauli in Criminal Case No.848 of 2024 (State vs. Sanjay and othes) under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. as well as charge sheet dated 14.01.2024 arising out of Case Crime No.146 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Naugarh, District Chandauli.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in this case applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated by the informant. Further submitted that the informant has alleged in the F.I.R. that she and her husband were cultivating in the agricultural land owned by one Shaukat Ali on the basis of patwan though there is no any Shaukat Ali. Further submitted that the incident is said to have taken on 19.12.2023 when the informant and her husband went on the field with tractor for sowing the wheat in the meantime, the applicants are said to have made interference while abusing and committed marpit with them regarding which F.I.R. was lodged. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation no proper material was collected by the I.O. but charge sheet was filed against them on the basis of which cognizance was also taken by the learned court without applying its judicial mind. It is also submitted that he has already filed writ petition before this Court regarding determination of rights in relation to which direction was given to the authorities concerned to decide the representation of the application as expeditiously as possible within a period of 12 weeks but it is still pending against which they have already filed contempt application before this Court. In view of the aforesaid, they pray

¶9

for quashing the entire proceedings of the case.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case no ownership is in dispute between the applicants and the informant but this matter is related to abuse and marpit between the parties. The rights of the applicants are to be decided in civil proceedings but not in the criminal proceedings. There were injuries on the person of the informant and she was medically examined. During the course of investigation the medical report was also taken into consideration and statement of the doctor conducting medical examination was also recorded which supports the allegation of marpit between the parties.The learned trial court took cognizance of the offences after considering the material on record by applying its judicial mind. The veracity of statement of witnesses cannot be decided at this stage but it is possible during the course of trial.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the contents in F.I.R., the material collected during the course of investigation, charge sheet and the order of cognizance passed by the learned court concerned, there appears no ground to grant indulgence in favour of the applicants since the veracity of the statement of the witness cannot be decided at this stage and medical report is also in support of the statement of the injured showing marpit with her. This matter cannot be said to be of civil nature, therefore, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the case is, hereby, refused.

¶12

However, the applicants may have an option to file application for discharge before the learned court at an appropriate stage which shall be heard and decided by it, in accordance with law.

¶13

Accordingly, this application is disposed of finally.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.9.2024 Ashok Gupta

¶15

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

Sanjay and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

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

Similar cases

Naseem Khan vs State of U.P. and Another

Ayesha Khan vs State of Up and Another

Surekha Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Lekhraj and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ausaf Siddiqui and Another vs State of Up