Dismissed

Vanshidhar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024A482/34878/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of a charge-sheet and summoning order for offences including threatening messages sent via SMS; the applicant claimed hospitalisation prevented him from sending the SMS. The court held the defence raised questions of fact for trial, found no manifest mala fides, and dismissed the application with liberty to file afresh.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vanshidhar Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:166507

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34878 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vanshidhar Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Pandey,Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 29.10.2021 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 26.7.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.16700 of 2022 titled State v. Vanshidhar Pandey, arising out of Case Crime No.85 of 2021, under sections 504, 506, 507 IPC & 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station Rewatipur, District Ghazipur, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the opposite party no.2 due to personal grudge; previously, the opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR against the applicant in which he has been released from the jail, and soon after his release the instant FIR has again been lodged against the applicant; the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR as he was admitted in hospital at the time of the alleged incident, and he was not in a position to send the alleged SMS to the opposite party no.2; the entire

¶9

criminal proceedings have been initiated against the applicant only to harass him, and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and has drawn attention of the Court to the medical documents, which suggests that the applicant was suffering from muscular pain, and there is no such document which could suggest that the applicant was not in a position to use the mobile phone at the time of the incident.

¶11

In the instant matter, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Similarly no such illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out in the impugned summoning order, so as to warrant any interference by this court in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Perusal of record and on examination of the documents placed before the Court, it's prima-facie observed that there is no such document which could established that the applicant was not in a position to use the mobile phone at the time of the alleged incident, and otherwise also the same needs to be tested during the trial, therefore, no case for quashing of the impugned proceedings is

¶13

made out against the applicant.

¶14

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits and it is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the applicant to file a fresh.

¶15

Let the certified copies be returned forthwith to the applicant's counsel as per rules.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.10.2024 Anil K. Sharma

¶17

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶18

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

Vanshidhar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vanshidhar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niraj @ Banti Shahi and 3 Others vs State of Upand Another

Ashok Kumar Prajapati vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalu Joshi @ Lalu Ram and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Kamlesh Kumar Yadav vs State of Up and Another

Vidharam vs State of Up and Another

Vasim Khan vs State of U.P. and Another