Pradeep Kumar Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2024CRLA/377/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered an appeal to quash a summons in a criminal trial involving alleged offences under IPC and SC/ST Act. The court noted the existence of prior NCRs and a final report. The judge listed the case for April 2024, issued notice to the private respondent, and granted an interim stay of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Stay of impugned proceedings until further orders; case listed for the month of April 2024.

Pradeep Kumar Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 377 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Raman Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 05.03.2020 passed by learned Special Judge/ Additional Session Judge (SC/ST Act), Bahraich in Crl. Misc. Case No. 68/12/2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 1958 of 2017 U/s 323, 452, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Dargah Shareef, DistrictBahraich.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant no. 1 was beaten by Bhure, Virendra and other, as a result, he went to the police station and lodged complaint as N.C.R. No. 115 of 2013 on 06.06.2013, thereafter, he was sent for medico legal examination along with Home Guard, namely, Haricharan Singh, Police Station- Dargah Shareef, Bahraich and in medico legal report, two injuries were found on his body. He further submits that in retaliation of aforesaid N.C.R., the F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged on the basis of incorrect facts and one application U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was also moved by complainant who was accused in aforesaid N.C.R., in this connection, Magistrate sought report in which the said incident was denied by police persons, thereafter, order was passed for lodging the F.I.R. He further submits that during the course of investigation, husband of complainant did not support the prosecution version as such there was a major contradiction in the prosecution story. It is further submitted that final report was submitted by Investigating Officer in the year 2017 and protest petition was filed in the year 2019 which was allowed by learned trial court. It is further submitted that complainant of the present case deliberately concealed the fact that one N.C.R. was lodged against her and learned trial court passed the summoning order in the most mechanical manner, hence, the impugned prosecution is a malicious one. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 SCC

¶8

(Cri.) 426 , it is, thus, submitted that indulgence of this Court is required.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of appellants, but he does not dispute the fact that final report was submitted by Investigating Officer after detailed investigation and defence of appellant can be raised at the appropriate stage.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, impugned order as well as other relevant documents; it is evident from the record that one N.C.R. was lodged from the side of appellants against complainant of present case as well as two others, thereafter, application U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved by complainant which was allowed, and under the order of Magistrate, the F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged in the year 2017. It is further evident that after detailed investigation, final report was submitted by Investigating Officer and protest petition was also filed before the trial court after about two years from the duration of submission of the final report. It is also evident that complainant did not disclose the fact that the aforesaid N.C.R. was lodged against her also from the side of appellants. In such circumstances, the matter requires consideration.

¶11

Issue notice to private respondent.

¶12

7. List this case in the month of April, 2024.

¶13

Until further order, the impugned proceedings shall remain stayed.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.2.2024 Arpan

¶15

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

Pradeep Kumar Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Subhash Soni vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Rahul Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Arshad Jameel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ravi vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

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