Dismissed

Ramesh Chandra Verma @ Ramesh Chandr Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 6 Others

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2024A482/7260/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed aSection 482 petition challenging a revisional order that quashed a summoning warrant. The court upheld the lower court's finding that contradictory witness statements regarding a fight and alleged snatching justified setting aside the summons.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed upholding the order setting aside the summoning warrant.

Ramesh Chandra Verma @ Ramesh Chandr Verma vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56536

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7260 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Verma @ Ramesh Chandr Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Pheran Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) has been filed challenging the order dated 18.07.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, passed in Criminal Revision No.64 of 2023 in re: Gauri Shanker Prajapati and others vs. State of U.P. and another, whereby the learned revisional court has set-aside the summoning order dated 13.02.2023 passed in complaint case no.787 of 2020 and remitted back the mater for a fresh decision.

¶8

A perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the learned revisional court has considered the contradiction in the statements of two witnesses namely Dinanath Pandey-PW1 and Umakant Shukla-PW2 which have been held to be contradictory to each other and thus the revisional court has been of the view that considering the aforesaid contradiction the impugned summoning order merits to be set-aside.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has sought to challenge the said order on the ground that in the statements of Dinanath Pandey and Umakant Shukla both the witnesses have supported the said incident.

¶10

However, a perusal of the aforesaid statements would indicate that there is a clear contradiction between the statement of Sri Umakant Shukla, a copy of which is part of Annexure-8 (page 67) vis-a-vis the statement of Sri Dinanath, a copy of which has also been filed as part of Annexure-8 (page 71) to the petition, wherein one witness has indicated about the actual fight having taken place between the parties and the gold chain having been snatched by the respondents while the other witness has indicated about the said incident and has not indicated about any fight having occurred between the parties

¶11

except normal abuses and has not indicated anything about the gold chain having been snatched.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid contradiction as appears in the statements of both the witnesses there does not appear to be any error in the order passed by the revisional court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 20.8.2024

¶14

A. Katiyar

¶15

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramesh Chandra Verma @ Ramesh Chandr Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Verma @ Ramesh Chandr Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 6 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Juvenile X (Minor) Thru. His Father Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Harshit Kumar @ Harshit Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Siddharth Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education, Lko. and 5 Others

Ram Raj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Shivangi Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Faraj Khan and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another