Partly allowed

Brijnath and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2024A482/36664/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging cognizance order in a case involving Sections 323, 506, 452, 454, and 376 IPC. The court found prima facie force in the applicants' submissions regarding contradictions in statements and medical reports concerning Section 376 IPC charges. The proceeding was stayed only for applicant no.1 pending counter-afidaits.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings stayed only so far as it relates to applicant no.1

Brijnath and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36664 of 2024 Applicant :- Brijnath And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite party no.1 State.

¶4

Issue notice to opposite party no.2, returnable at an early date.

¶5

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging cognizance order dated 20.07.2023 as well as proceedings arising out of Case Crime no.079 of 2023, under Sections 323, 506, 452, 454, 376 IPC, Police Station Ahiraula, District Azamgarh pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC Court No.1, Azamgarh.

¶6

Learned counsel for applicants submits that initially first information report was lodged only against the applicants no.2 and 4 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 and 354(Kha) IPC whereafter it was only in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that the names of other two applicants was introduced as an afterthought with allegation under Section 376 IPC being alleged. It is submitted that there is serious contradiction in the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. particularly with regard to allegation levelled under Section 376 IPC so far as it relates to the date of occurrence.

¶7

Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the medical report to submit that the same does not corroborate allegations levelled under Section 376 IPC. It is also submitted that written statement of alleged eye witnesses do not support such allegation.

¶8

Learned Additional Government Advocate has

¶9

opposed the application with the submission that the contents of first information report as well as statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C alongwith statements of eye witness accounts clearly make out a case under the other provisions with the allegation of Section 376 IPC also being prima facie established in the statement of victim.

¶10

Prima facie submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicants have force and require consideration for which time is granted to opposite parties to file their counter affidavit particularly with regard to allegations levelled under Section 376 IPC.

¶11

List this case on 08.01.2025, as fresh alongwith service report.

¶12

Till next date of listing, proceeding in Case Crime no.079 of 2023, under Sections 323, 506, 452, 454, 376 IPC, Police Station Ahiraula, District Azamgarh shall remain stayed only so far as it relates to applicant no.1

¶13

Order Date :- 26.11.2024 Subodh/-

¶14

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

Brijnath and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijnath and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anil Kumar vs State of Up and Another

Pawan vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Ekta Chauhan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil Vishwakarma vs State of Up and Another

Anmol Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Kumar @ Mahesh Dutt vs State of U.P. Others