Dismissed

Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2024A482/37993/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant sought quashing of the charge-sheet and summoning order alleging misconduct in a coaching institute. The single judge held that the issues of delay in FIR, victim's credibility, and false implication required factual adjudication by the trial court, dismissing the application with enforceable criminal proceedings. The court found prima f

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of charge-sheet and summoning order was dismissed.

Dinesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176528

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37993 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jalaj Kumar Tripathi,Praveen Kumar Mishra 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 and perused material on record.

¶7

The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 08.03.2024 and summoning order dated 05.09.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Special Criminal Case No. 283 of 2024, titled State v. Dinesh Kumar, arising out of Case Crime No. 56 of 2024, under Section 354Ka, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Special Judge, PCOSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged incident has taken place on 15.02.2024, whereas the FIR was registered on 16.02.2024 and there is no explanation of delay in lodging the FIR. The statement of the victim, under Section 164 Cr.P.C, was recorded on 05.03.2024 after a delay of almost 20 days, therefore, the version of complainant cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure7 containing the name of students enrolled in his coaching institute for getting tuition and states that the victim has not paid the

¶9

coaching fee for the month of July to February and when the applicant asked for fees, he has been falsely implicated. The independent witnesses, who are students of the same coaching institute, has not supported the prosecution version.

¶10

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there are serious allegations of catching hold the hand of victim. In her statement, recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has supported the prosecution version. One day delay in registration of FIR not amounts to make the entire prosecution story unbelievable.

¶11

In the instant matter, the submissions raised 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

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and having gone through the statement of victim, recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it's prima facie established that the victim has clearly stated that when she had gone to study in the coaching institute of the applicant, the applicant has caught hold her hand and asked her

¶13

to marry with him. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant needs to be tested during trial, therefore, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out.

¶14

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 11.11.2024 A. Tripathi

¶16

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶17

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Shivkumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Pinku Tiwari @ Gajendra Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Saeed Ahmad and Another vs State of Up and Another

Smt Najish and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Dhanush Dhari Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Prachi Sharma and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others