Dismissed

Suman and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2024A482/29522/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from a property dispute, the Court rejected the plea, holding that veracity of statements and evidentiary issues must be resolved during the trial rather than at the application stage.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash the entire proceedings including the charge sheet and cognizance order is refused.

Suman and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:148201

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29522 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Suman And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Prakash Rawat 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.

¶7

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding including the charge sheet dated 28.12.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 30.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 09, Agra in Case No. 22 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 370 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 452, 354 I.P.C., Police Station Khandauli, District, Agra and further prayed to stay the proceedings in the aforesaid case.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that present F.I.R. was lodged in counter-blast against the applicants which was in relation to dispute of immovable property. It is also submitted that the applicants lodged the F.I.R. against the opposite party no. 2 on the same day of incident but the opposite party no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. against the applicants on 21.09.2023 whereas incident has said to have taken place on 16.08.2023. It is further submitted that there is medical report regarding injuries to the applicant side but there is no any medical report in support of version of maar-peet by the informant which makes their allegation false. It is also submitted that after investigation the I.O. filed charge sheet against the applicants without collecting proper material and the learned court concerned also took cognizance of the offences, therefore, request to quash the entire proceedings of the case including the charge sheet and order of cognizance passed by the learned court concerned.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the incident is said to have taken place on 16.08.2023 regarding which the applicants lodged an F.I.R. against

¶10

the opposite party no. 2 on the same day but the husband of opposite party no. 2 was detained by the police that was the reason F.I.R. could not be lodged on the same day. Later on, when application in this regard was given to the Deputy Commissioner of Police then the present F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants. Only in absence of the medical report it cannot be said that the entire allegation in the F.I.R. is false. The veracity of the statements of the informant and other witnesses can only be examined during the course of trial but cannot be decided at this stage. Further applicants may have an option to move an application for discharge before the learned court at an appropriate stage.

¶11

On 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 in F.I.R. and the charge sheet, it appears that the incident is said to have taken place on 16.08.2023 regarding which the applicants also lodged the F.I.R. against the opposite party. The present F.I.R. against the applicants was also lodged in relation to the same incident by the informant. Admittedly, the incident took place on the same day and the veracity of statements of opposite party no. 2 and other witnesses cannot be examined at this stage, therefore, there appears no ground to grant any indulgence in favour of the applicants at this stage. As a result, prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the case is hereby refused. Further, applicants may have an option to move an application for discharge before the learned trial court which shall be heard and decided in accordance with law on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation.

¶12

Accordingly, this application stands disposed of finally.

¶13

Order Date :- 11.9.2024 Suraj Srivastav

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suman and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman and 5 Others 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

Similar cases

Rishabh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Jakiuddin and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijesh Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Raghvendra Bajpai @ Pannu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another