Dismissed

Ameeka Yadav and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2024A482/25285/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of a charge sheet and cognizance order arising from a complaint under Sections 323, 504, and 506 I.P.C., the High Court refused to quash the proceedings. The Court held that the veracity of the allegations involved questions of fact that could only be decided during the trial.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the charge sheet, order of cognizance, and entire proceedings was refused; applicant directed to move for discharge before the trial court.

Ameeka Yadav and 3 Others vs State of Up and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:130098

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25285 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ameeka Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar 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 charge sheet dated 15.11.2022, cognizance as well as summoning order dated 20.05.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.26, Deoria and entire proceedings of Case No.6905 of 2024 (State vs. Ameeka Yadav and others) arising out of N.C.R. No.15 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. relating to Police Station Madanpur, District Deoria pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.26, Deoria.

¶8

It is submitted that in this case applicants have been falsely implicated with false allegations of committing marpit and insult with threat to the victim. Further submitted that the informant Sunil Kumar molested the cousin of the applicant no.2 Monu Yadav regarding which an F.I.R. was lodged by her as Crime No.35 of 2022 in which informant was made named accused. In counter blast, the present N.C.R. was lodged by Sunil Kumar against the present applicants for making pressure. The injuries said to be found on the person of Sunil Kumar were superficial in nature and got managed. No offence u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. is made out at all even though the I.O. after investigation filed charge sheet on the basis of which the learned court took cognizance of the offfence which cannot be said to be lawful, therefore, request to quash the entire proceedings of the case including charge sheet as well as cognizance order.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that incident in both the cases said to have taken place on 19.03.2022 at about 5:00 P.M. in which informant is said to have

¶10

molested Km. Kajal who lodged the F.I.R. against the informant and two other co-accused persons. On the same day, the present applicants caught hold of the informant and caused injuries on his person regarding which N.C.R. was lodged at the police station u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. The injured Sunil Kumar was medically examined in which 6 injuries were found on his person out of which 2 injuries were lacerated wounds and contusion and others were simple in nature. He was taken to the hospital by Home Guard from the police station, therefore, it cannot be said to be got managed or false at this stage. Later on, an application u/s 155(2) Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned court concerned for permission in pursuance to which investigation was made and after collecting the material charge sheet was filed by the I.O. It is also contended that the informant in the aforesaid case in which Sunil Yadav was an accused has not been made accused and other relatives has also not been named which shows that the contents of the present F.I.R. are not false. The veracity of statements of the informant as well as other witnesses cannot be tested at this stage but it is possible during the course of trial. Further the applicants may have an option to move for discharge before the learned trial court at an appropriate stage.

¶11

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 contents of the N.C.R., the injury report of the informant, the charge sheet and other materials collected during the course of investigation, it appears that at this stage the veracity of the contents cannot be decided. It can only be decided during trial. Since it involves question of fact, therefore, prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the case including charge sheet and order of cognizance is, hereby, refused.

¶12

However, applicants may have an option to move for discharge before the learned trial court which shall be heard and decided on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation, in accordance with law.

¶13

Accordingly, this application is disposed of finally.

¶14

Order Date :- 12.8.2024 Ashok Gupta

¶15

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

Ameeka Yadav and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ameeka Yadav and 3 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Chandan Singh vs State of U.P.

Doli Kanaujiya and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Somveer Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Pintu Kumar Sahani and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another