Dismissed

Chitranshu @ Chitranshu Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2025/10025/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of trial and rejection of his discharge application in a fatal road-accident case under Sections 279/304-A IPC. The Court found prima facie material against the applicant, holding questions of vehicle identity, technical inspection and date discrepancy were triable issues, and dismissed the application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chitranshu @ Chitranshu Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10025 of 2025

¶3

Chitranshu @ Chitranshu Yadav

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harish Chandra Yadav, Lalit Kumar Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Harish Chandra Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Verma, the learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as perused the record.

¶10

The instant application has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):-

¶11

"For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 32786 of 2022 "State Versus Chitranshu and others" arising out of Case Crime No. 232 of 2019 Under Sections 279/304-A I.P.C. Police Station-Sarojini Nagar, District-Lucknow pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, IIIrd, Lucknow and impugned order dated 26.9.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, IIIrd, Lucknow by which the discharge application dated 20.8.2025 has been rejected, contained in Annexure No.1 to the accompanying affidavit, in the interest of justice.

¶12

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 32786 of 2022 "State Versus Chitranshu and others" arising out of Case Crime No. 232 of 2019 Under Sections 279/304-A I.P.C. Police Station-Sarojini Nagar, District-Lucknow pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, IIIrd, Lucknow, in the interest of justice."

¶13

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

¶14

(i) An FIR registered as Case Crime No. 0232/2019 was lodged on 21.04.2019, under Sections- 279 and 304-A IPC at Police StationSarojini Nagar, District- Lucknow South (Commissionerate Lucknow).

¶15

(ii) As per the aforesaid FIR, the incident/accident occurred on 12.04.2019 and two vehicles were involved in the incident/accident i.e. (s) Scorpio bearing Registration No. UP32FA8000 and (b) Tractor bearing Registration No. UP71B7420, which crushed the deceased namely Roshni, who was fallen down from the scooty driven by Neha on account of opening the door by a person sitting in the Vehicle No.

¶16

A482 No. 10025 of 2025

¶17

¶18

UP32FA8000.

¶19

(iii) It is to be noted here that Roshni is the daughter of Smt. Radha w/o Bahadur R/o R.T. Office, Munshi Khera, Police Station- Sarojini Nagar, District- Lucknow.

¶20

(iv) It is also to be noted here that Neha, who was driving the scooty, is the daughter of Neelu Pal.

¶21

(v) The statement (annexed as Annexure No. 7 of the instant application) on record of Neelu Pal w/o Sunil Pal R/o Munshi Kheda, Police StationSarojini Nagar, District- Lucknow, indicates that she (Neha Pal) was driving the scooty on the date of incident i.e. on 12.04.2019.

¶22

(vi) It is also relevant to indicate here that informant was not present at the situs/place of incident, in which Roshni was crushed by the Tractor bearing Registration No. UP71B7420.

¶23

(vii) The copy of the statement of informant/Smt. Radha on record, annexed as Annexrue No. 5 at page 52 of the paper book, indicates that Neha Pal was driving the Scooty on 12.04.2019.

¶24

(viii) The typed copy of supplementary statement/Majeed Bayan of the informant/Smt. Radha indicates different dates of incident i.e. 09.04.2019, 12.04.2019 and 09.12.2019, which could be typographical error.

¶25

(ix) The copy of statement of Neelu Pal w/o Sunil Pal on record, annexed as Annexure No. 7 of the instant application, indicates that the accident occurred on 09.04.2019 and vehicles involved in the accident were Scorpion Jeep bearing Registration No. UP32FA8000 and Tractor bearing Registration No. UP71B7420.

¶26

(x) The copy of statement of eye-witness namely Vinod Kumar on record, annexed as Annexure No. 8 of the instant application, indicates that the deceased was crushed on 09.04.2019 by Tractor bearing Registration No. U.P. 71B7420 and the second vehicle, on account of which the deceased fell down from the scooty and crushed by the Tractor, was the Scorpion.

¶27

(xi) It is also to be noted here that no technical inspection was carried out of the scooty and also the vehicles bearing Registration No. UP32FA8000 and Tractor bearing Registration No. UP71B7420 involved in the accident.

¶28

In the aforesaid background of the case, the applicant had earlier approached this Court by means of the Application U/S 482 No. 6317 of 2025 (Chitranshu @ Chitranshu Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another), which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2025. The order dated 06.08.2025 reads as under:-

¶29

"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶30

2. The instant application has been filed with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 4.1.2022 passed in Case No.32780/2022 arising out of case crime no. 232/2019 under sections 279 and 304-A IPC at P.S. Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow as well as charge sheet dated 10.12.2018 submitted by investigating officer in the aforesaid crime number and entire criminal proceeding in pursuant thereto.

¶31

A482 No. 10025 of 2025

¶32

¶33

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that there is no evidence at all against the applicant and only on the basis of statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the whole proceeding has been initiated and chargesheet has been filed. He added that the criminal proceedings against the present applicant is nothing but harassment.

¶34

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that there is no abuse of process of law and only factual matrix has been agitated before this before this Court and that could not be gone into at this stage, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thus the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

5. After the argument at length, learned counsel for the applicant submits that interest of justice would be sub-served, if this Court directs the court below to permit the applicant to appear before the court below and file an application of discharge. He further submits that the court below may be directed to decide the discharge application within stipulated period of time, as may be fixed by this Court.

¶36

6. Learned AGA for the State has no objection to the aforesaid submission.

¶37

7. In view of aforesaid, the applicant is permitted to file an application for discharge before the court below within a period of two weeks from today and if such an application is filed, the same shall be decided within a further period of 30 days, strictly in accordance with law.

¶38

8. With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of."

¶39

A perusal of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the above quoted order indicates that after arguments at some length, the learned counsel for the applicant prayed for the liberty from this Court to prefer an application seeking discharge and the said prayer was acceded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶40

In the light of above quoted order dated 06.08.2025, the applicant preferred an application seeking discharge before the court of Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow (in short "Magistrate"), which has been rejected by the Magistrate by the impugned order dated 26.09.2025. The relevant portion of the order dated 26.09.2025 reads as under:-

¶41

"सुना तथा प�ावली का पिरशीलन िकया।

¶42

प�ावली के पिरशीलन से िविदत होता है िक वािदनी �ीमती राधा �ारा तहरीर व िववेचक को िदये गये अपने बयान अंतग�त धारा- 161 सी.आर.पी.सी. म� अपने कथनो का समथ�न िकया गया है ओर अपने केस डायरी पचा�-2 म� अंिकत बयान म� कथन है िक अपने बयान म� कथन िकया है िक "िदनांक 12.04.2019 को मेरी पु�ी रोशनी को नेहापाल लेकर अपनी लडकी गुिडयां की �कूटी पर बैठकर बाजार जा रही थी समय करीब 5 बजे शाम को बीमा हाि�पटल केक सामने अचानक आगे जा रही गाडी न० यू0पी032एफ.ए. 800 के गाडी का फाटक खुल गया और पीछे से आ रही �कूटी की टककर हो गयी पीछे बैठी मेरी लडकी रोशनी छटककर सडक पर िगर गयी उसके पीछे तेज र�तार से टै�टर न० यू०पी० 71 बी. 7420 म� ब�ची को कुचल िदया िजससे रोशनी की मौके पर ही मृ�यु हो गयी।" इसी �कार च�मदीद गवाह िवनोद कुमार िजनका बयान केस डायरी- 5 म� अंिकत है उ�होने अपने 161 सी.आर. पी. के बयान म� कथन िकया है िक िदनांक 09.04.2019 को म� बीमा अ�पताल के पास से जैसे ही गुजर रहा था देखा िक एक कार का फाटक खुल गया उससे �कूटी ट�करा गयी �कूटी पर बैठी दो लडकी और छोटी ब�ची सडक पर िगर पडे पीछे से आ रहा एक टै�टर का चालक ने तेजी व लापरवाही से चलाते �ये छोटी ब�ची पर टै�टर चढा िदया

¶43

A482 No. 10025 of 2025

¶44

¶45

िजससे उसकी मौके पर मृ�यु हो गयी और टै�टर लेकर भाग गया तथा �कािपयो वाला भी भाग गया भीड लग गयी म� भी मौके पर था जो मैने देखा था आपको सही-सही बता िदया वही मेरा बयान है। अ�य गवाह नाम नीलू पाल ने भी अपने बयान म� कथन िकया है िक िदनांक 09.04.2019 को मै बाजार जा रही थी रोशनी रोने लगी तब मै गुिडया को �कूटी के पीछे बैठाकर उसके गोद म� रोशनी को लेकर जा रहा �कािपय� यू०पी० 32 एफ.ए. 800 का अचानक फाटक खुल गया मेरी �कूटी फाटक म� टकराकर हम लोग सडक पर िगर पडे रोशनी कुछ �र सडक पर जा िगरी पीछे से आ रहा टै�टर यू०पी० 71 बी 7420 का चालक ने तेजी व लापरवाही से चलाते �ये रोशनी के उपर टै�टर चढा िदया िजससे मौके पर ही रोशनी की मृ�यु हो गयी।

¶46

��तुत मामला एक स�क �घ�टना से संबंिधत है िजसम� अिभयु�गण एक �कॉिपयो वाहन चालक और �सरा एक �ै�टर चालक ह�। इनके िव�� आरोप है िक उनकी लापरवाही से �कूटी सवार ब�ची की मृ�यु हो गई।

¶47

वादी �ारा िलिखत तहरीर म� �प� उ�लेख िकया गया है िक �कॉिपयो (UP32BK3445) के चालक ने चलते वाहन का अचानक दरवा�ा खोल िदया, िजससे �कूटी अिनयंि�त होकर िगर गई और पीछे से आ रहे �ै�टर ने ब�ची को कुचल िदया। �ाथिमक सूचना िरपोट� (एफआईआर) म� भी घटना का �प� िववरण िदया गया है, िजसम� दोन� वाहन� की भूिमका �प� है। केस डायरी के पृ� सं�या 2 म� वादी की धारा 161 सीआरपीसी की बयान म� भी यही त�य दोहराए गए ह�। सीडी सं�या 5 म� दो ��य�दश� गवाह� ने भी घटना की पुि� की है, य�िप उनके �ार घटना की ितिथ म� कुछ अंतर बताया गया है, िकतु घटना का िववरण समान है।

¶48

�करण अिभलेख का परी�ण करने पर यह �ात होता है िक वादी �ारा दज� एफआईआर म� �प� �प से अिभयु� �कॉिपयो चालक एवं �ै�टर चालक के िव�� आरोप लगाए गए ह�। वािदनी के धारा 161 सीआरपीसी के अंतग�त िदए गए कथन तथा अ�य ��य�दश� गवाह� के बयान� से घटना की पुि� होती है। माननीय सव��च �यायालय �ारा State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 म� यह िस�ांत �ितपािदत िकया गया िक, चाज� तय करने अथवा िड�चाज� पर िवचार करते समय �यायालय को केवल यह देखना होता है िक अिभयु� के िव�� अपराध िकए जाने की �थम ��या संभावना है या नह�। इसी तरह, State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj, AIR 1997 SC 2041 म� भी वह �प� िकया गया िक िड�चाज� के �तर पर �यायालय �ारा सा�य का मू�यांकन करने की आव�यकता नह� है, बि�क केवल यह देखना है िक �या अिभयु� के िव�� पया � त साम�ी उपल�ध है।

¶49

�करण म� वादी की तहरीर, अिभयोजन गवाह� के बयान� तथा वाहन सं�या के �प� उ�लेख से �थम ��या अिभयु�गण �ारा अपराध िकया जाना �तीत होता है। घटना की ितिथ म� अंतर होना गवाही की िव�सनीयता पर इस �तर पर िनणा�यक नह� माना जा सकता।

¶50

अतः �यायालय का मत है िक अिभयु� िच�ांशु को िड�चाज� िकया जाना उिचत नह� होगा।

¶51

आदशे

¶52

अिभयु� िच�ांशु का धारा 239 दंड �ि�या संिहता के अंतग�त ��तुत �ाथ�ना प� िनर�त िकया जाता है। प�ावली वा�ते सा�य अंतग�त धारा-244 दं०�०स० िदनांक 05-11-2025 को पेश हो।"

¶53

Considered the aforesaid facts of the case and also the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as by the learned AGA of the State of U.P., as per whom while dealing with the matters seeking discharge mini trial is not permissible, and also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments passed in the case(s) of State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39; Union of India vs. Prafull Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC 4; Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460; Tarun Jit Tejpal vs. State of Goa and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1053; Hazrat Deen vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1781; State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294 and Vishnu Kumar Shukla vs. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1582 .

¶54

A482 No. 10025 of 2025

¶55

¶56

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that prima facie the case appears to be there of the aforementioned sections against the applicant and therefore this Court finds that no interference is required in the matter. It is for the following facts(s)/reason(s):-

¶57

(i) Indisputedly, the applicant is the owner in possession of the vehicle bearing Registration No. UP32FA8000 and this number finds place in the FIR itself, lodged with some delay, which is the subject matter of the trial.

¶58

(ii) Based upon the plea related to technical examination of the vehicles in issue, the entire criminal proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶59

(iii) Whether the vehicle involved was the Scorpion or Safari can be dealt with by the trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties in this regard.

¶60

(iv) The date of the incident indicated in Majeed Bayan of the informant is also the subject matter of the trial based upon the evidence adduced in this regard.

¶61

(v) Before this Court only typed copies of the statements of witnesses have been brought on record and as such, the veracity of these statements cannot checked.

¶62

For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is dismissed . Cost made easy.

¶63

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶64

December 8, 2025

¶65

Arun/-

¶66

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chitranshu @ Chitranshu Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chitranshu @ Chitranshu Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Niraj Kumar and 3 Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amit Kumar Gupta @ Jay Jay and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Shubham Agarwal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Arum Kumar Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Krishna Kumar @ Krishna Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dr. Saurabh Ahlawat vs Dr. Ratan Pal Singh Suman Director General Medical and Health Services U.P. Lko.