The High Court dismissed a Section 482 CrPC application seeking to quash a chargesheet and cognizance order. The court held that even if simple injuries were reported, making Section 307 IPC questionable, other offences were made out, and proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the nature of injuries.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:108753
Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8771 of 2024
Applicant :- Raju Singh Alias Himanshu Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Omar Zamin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the Charge sheet dated 19.09.2023, cognizance order dated 27.09.2023 as well as entire proceeding of Sessions Case No. 2403 of 2023 "State Vs. Abhishek Kumar and another", arising out of Case Crime No. 540 of 2023 U/s 323, 504, 506, 307 Read with Section 34 I.P.C., P.S. Cantt., District Gorakhpur. Pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No. 12, Gorakhpur.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Sessions Case No. 2403 of 2023 "State Vs. Abhishek Kumar and another", arising out of Case Crime No. 540 of 2023 U/s 323, 504, 506, 307 Read with Section 34 I.P.C., P.S. Cantt., District Gorakhpur. Pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No. 12, Gorakhpur., during the pendency of the instant application before this Hon'ble Court, and/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and substantial injury."
near the place of occurrence and was inquiring about the incident where he states that some people in a secretive manner informed him that workers of the hotel were involved in it in which they disclosed the name of the applicant. It is submitted that subsequently the name of the applicant and the co-accused Abhishek Kumar as the persons assaulting the injured was disclosed by the co-accused Satish Dwivedi and Ashwani Gupta in their statements recorded during investigation. It is submitted that although the trial court has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant and the other accused person namely Abhishek Kumar for the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307, 34 I.P.C. vide order dated 26.09.2023 but the summoning under Section 307 I.P.C. is totally bad in the eyes of law inasmuch as the injuries allegedly received by the injured Sarvesh Tiwari and Avnish Kumar Pandey were opined to be simple in nature by the doctor, copies of the said injuries reports have been placed before the Court which are annexure no. 3 to the affidavit. It is submitted while placing annexure no. 9 to the affidavit that the alleged injured Sarvesh Tiwari is a hardened criminal and is a habitual offender having being involved in 14 criminal cases. The list of the said cases has been placed before the Court which is at page no. 78 of the paper book. It is submitted that by any stretch no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. would be made out. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of Jage Ram and others vs. State of Haryana: (2015) 11 SCC 366 and Champa Lal Dhakar Vs. Naval Singh Rajput and others: (2019) 4 SCC 146. It is submitted that the proceedings thus are abuse of process of the court and deserve to be quashed.
injuries received by the two injured persons, Section 307 I.P.C. will not be made, cannot be a ground for quashing the entire prosecution case. The law as has been held and stands till date is that proceeding cannot be quashed if some or the other offence is made out. A proceeding can be quashed only if no offence whatsoever is made out after considering the entire material collected during investigation. In the present case there are two injured persons who have been medically examined. The two judgements of the Apex Court which have been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant deal with the situation with regards to the nature of injuries and the appropriate section for which accused has to be charged. The present case does not fall in any of the categories of the cases mentioned for quashing as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra : (2021) 19 SCC 401 . No ground for interference is made out.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Order Date :- 2.7.2024 #Naresh#
Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the implication of the applicant in the FIR during investigation warrants quashing the proceedings?
Whether the nature of injuries (simple injuries) renders the charge under Section 307 IPC bad in law such that the entire prosecution must be quashed?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jage Ram and others vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶12
Jage Ram and others vs. State of Haryana: (2015) 11 SCC 366 · Who else cites this
Champa Lal Dhakar Vs. Naval Singh Rajput and othersReferred¶12
Champa Lal Dhakar Vs. Naval Singh Rajput and others: (2019) 4 SCC 146 · Who else cites this
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶15
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra : (2021) 19 SCC 401 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Raju Singh Alias Himanshu Singh
State of U.P.
Another
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
