Dismissed

Krishna Kant Solanki v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2024A482/29735/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings. The court held that since allegations were made out in the FIR and a charge sheet had been filed, the application for quashing could not succeed, noting that mala fides are generally not a ground for quashing. Referring to Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Si

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the entire proceeding in Criminal Case No.35/1209 of 2023 and keep proceedings in abeyance is dismissed.

Krishna Kant Solanki vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:144522

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29735 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Krishna Kant Solanki Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Yadav,Veerendra Kumar Goutam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Shri Shailesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶8

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Krishna Kant Solanki with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding in Criminal Case No.35/1209 of 2023 (State Vs. Manoj and another) in pursuance of FIR No.148/2022 dated 7.9.2022 u/s 120-B IPC, P.S. Kurra, District Mainpuri being charge sheet no.07A/2022 dated 10.7.2023 pending before Addl. District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Protection of Corruption, Meerut and cognizance order dated 18.7.2023 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Protection of Corruption, Meerut in aforesaid case, u/s 7 of Protection of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC, P.S. Kurra, District Mainpuri with a further prayer that entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may be kept in abeyance.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant while placing para 34 of the affidavit argued that the allegations levelled against the applicant are false and he never demanded any money or bribe from the opposite party no.3 and never accepted any money and as such no offence is made out. It is argued that there is no specific role of the applicant. While placing para no.40 of the affidavit it is submitted that the proceedings have been initiated just to harass and blackmail the applicant. It is argued that the opposite party no.3 has initiated the present proceeding just in order to save his brother Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju who is involved in theft of electricity regarding which an FIR was earlier lodged against him by Junior Engineer Deoki Nandan on 17.4.2024 after which an assessment letter was issued by the department on 20.5.2022, para 23 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is further submitted

¶10

that the applicant has no criminal history, para 49 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court, as such the proceedings against the applicant are totally without any evidence and the order taking cognizance and summoning him which is dated 18.7.2023 is an illegal order and as such deserves to be quashed.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the state opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶12

After having heard learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR. There are allegations against him. The investigation has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted on which court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned him and another co-acused Manoj Kumar. In so far as the implication of the brother of the first informant/opposite party no.3 is concerned, the same may be the defence of the applicant which can be placed at the appropriate stage. The grounds of malafides cannot be the grounds for quashing as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh etc. : AIR 2023 SC 1987 and State of M.P. Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta : (2004) 1 SCC 691 .

¶13

In view of the same, prima-facie, allegations against the applicant and the law as stated above, no case for interference is made out. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is thus dismissed.

¶14

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 5.9.2024 Gaurav Kuls

¶16

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishna Kant Solanki v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kant Solanki v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Krishna Kant vs State of U.P. and Another

Minor X vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anupam Pandey vs State of Up and Another

X Juvenile vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Singh vs State of Up and Another