Dismissed

Kiran Devi and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2024A482/29144/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from a land dispute involving injuries was dismissed as a cognizable offence was made out. The court directed strict adherence to arrest guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing dismissed; authorities directed to ensure arrest procedure as per Arnesh Kumar guidelines; bail to be decided if applicants appear within a month.

Kiran Devi and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:150902

¶2

Court No. - 89

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29144 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kiran Devi And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar,Baldev Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Head learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶7

By means of instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Case No.14365 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.272 of 2023, Under Sections 323, 504, 506, 336 IPC; Police Station Sukhpura, District Ballia alongwith cognizance/summoning order dated 01.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Ballia.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that this criminal case has been instituted upon him only due to land dispute.The prosecution version is false and frivolous. As per opinion of the doctor the injuries are found to be simple in nature, three injuries were found on the person of the injured Gangadhar Shukla.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the offence is clearly made out on the basis of material on record. The injuries have also been found on the person of the injured. As cognizance offence is made out on the basis of investigation. The proceedings of the case should not be quashed on the threshold in exercise of powers provided under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

There is substance in submission of learned A.G.A.

¶11

The proceedings of the case cannot be quashed in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramveer Upadhyay Vs. The State of U.P. in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.2953 of 2022; Dr. Monica Kumar and another Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2008 (8) SCC 781; Raj Kapoor And others Vs State and others 1980(1) SCC 43; Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & another Etc Vs Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & others

¶12

2010 (6) SCC 588; State Of Haryana And others Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal and others 1998 (Supp) (1) SCC 335 and M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.Vs The State Of Maharashtra 2020 (10) SCC 180.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions made by the parties and material on record, I am of the considered view that a cognizable offence is made out in the case, and proceedings of trial court cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Considering the guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in aforesaid cited cases, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed accordingly.

¶15

However, considering the fact that all offences mentioned in the present case are punishable with a term up to 7 years, the authorities are directed to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 . If the applicants appeared before the court below within a month, their bail applications shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.9.2024 Ashish/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kiran Devi and 3 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Devi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Awdhesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dr. Mohammad Talib vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Hasim vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Misra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Manish Kumar Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another