Disposed

Pranshul Verma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2024A482/34576/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC convened a bench to hear an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a charge sheet, cognizance order, and trial proceedings involving charges of suicide abetment, rape, and SC/ST offences. The court granted liberty to the applicant to file a discharge application expeditiously and disposed of the application.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to applicant to file a discharge application before the trial court, which shall be considered and decided expeditiously.

Pranshul Verma vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:174739

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34576 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pranshul Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for opposite party No.1-State. In view of order being passed notice to opposite party No.2 stands dispensed with.

¶7

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge sheet dated 16th April, 2024, cognizance order dated 16th July, 2024 as well as proceedings of sessions trial No. 807 of 2024 (State versus Pranshul Verma and others) arising out of case crime No.94 of 2024 under sections 306, 376 IPC and under Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Kannauj, District Kannauj.

¶8

It has been submitted that initially F.I.R. had been lodged by the father of deceased only under Section 306 IPC whereafter the other sections were impugned against the applicant upon filing of the charge sheet.

¶9

Learned counsel has submitted that a perusal of the contents of the F.I.R. and statement of the informant, there is no allegation which would support the charges levelled against the applicant either under Section 306 or 376 IPC or even under the SC/ST Act which has been taken cognizance of by the trial court only in the statement of mother of deceased which even otherwise is an afterthought.

¶10

It is therefore submitted that the summoning order has been passed without taking consideration of the sections imputed against the applicant particularly the fact that the aforesaid sections are prima facie not made out against him even as per the material on record.

¶11

It is submitted that the applicant is currently employed on the post of Law Officer in Aryavrat Bank, Kannauj.

¶12

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for applicant on

¶13

the basis of instructions submits that liberty may be granted to the applicant to file a discharge application before the court concerned through counsel.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of opposite party-State submits that while issuing cognizance order, the trial court has clearly adverted to the statement of mother of deceased whereby proceedings under the SC/ST Act are clearly made out.

¶15

Upon consideration of submissions advanced and in view of liberty sought by learned counsel for applicant, liberty is granted to the applicant to file a discharge application before the trial court in the sessions trial No. 807 of 2024 (State versus Pranshul Verma and others) arising out of case crime No.94 of 2024 under sections 306, 376 IPC and under Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Kannauj, District Kannauj through counsel which shall be considered and decided expeditiously.

¶16

The application stands disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.11.2024 Prabhat

¶18

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

Pranshul Verma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pranshul Verma 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

Pushkar Singh Chandel and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and Others

Uday Pratap and 216 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 30 Others

Saurabh Shukla and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Shubham Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 5 Others

U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad,Lko. Thru. Addl. Housing Commissioner Dr. Neeraj Shukla vs Maya Devi Gupta

Parvesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another