Ashish Singh vs the State of U.P Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1858 of 2025

Applicant :- Ashish Singh Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Yadav,Ali Masood Wamiq Warsi,Prashant Chaudhary,Saquib Zia Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 B.N.S.S) has been preferred with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings as well as the consequential proceedings of Case No. 346 of 2013 (State v. Raj Kumar Singh & Anr.), arising out of Case Crime No. 190 of 2004, Police Station Beniganj, District Hardoi, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate I, Hardoi, under Sections 364 IPC; and the summoning order dated 30.10.2004, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Hardoi, in Case No. 346 of 2013, (State v. Rajkumar Singh & Anr.), whereby, the Applicant has been summoned as accused; as well as the chargesheet, bearing no. 88 of 2004, dated 27.08.2004, filed under Sections 364 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 190 of 2004, registered at Police Station Beniganj, District Hardoi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the respondent no. 2, the wife of the deceased has lodged an F.I.R on 04.07.2004, under Section 364 I.P.C alleging therein that the applicant and another co-accused person namely Ram Kumar Singh had come to her house on 22.10.2003, at 7:00 A.M and took her husband to Gram Khetapur for the purchase of Buffalo, but when he did not return till late in the evening, the respondent no. 2 had gone to the house of the applicant and the co-accused to find out the whereabouts of her husband. In place of giving any satisfactory reply, they got irritated and started shouting on her and told her that he might have gone to some relative's place.

¶8

It is further submitted that after the lodging of the F.I.R, the statement of one Purushottam Singh and Jang Bahadur were recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C, who were present at the time when the applicant and the coaccused Ram Kumar Singh had come to the house of the complainant i.e. respondent no. 2. From the perusal of the statement of Purushottam Singh and Jang Bahadur, it has come out that there was some dispute between the residents of two different villages and in the fight, the

¶9

applicant, alongwith other persons had started running and drowned the husband of the complainant in the river.

¶10

It is further submitted that neither from the F.I.R, nor from the statement given by the independent witnesses, any case is made out against the applicant under Section 364 I.P.C.

¶11

It is further submitted that the scribe who was writing the F.I.R in the Police Station has asked certain questions from the respondent no. 2, which are quoted hereinbelow:-

¶12

"प्रश्न- ।। हत्त्यया करनने कया ससंदनेह आपनने व्यकक्ति ककयया हहै सहह बयात क्यया हहै ?

¶13

उत्तरर- सहह बयात यह हहै सयाहब जजो मनेरह जयानकयारह मम हहै वह यह हहै कक अकभिययक्तिगण कने लड़कने ससंदहप व बड़ने नने ककसह लड़ककी सने गयाम अटवयापयर मम पढ़नने जयातने समय छनेडखयानह ककी थह जजस पर गयागाँव वयाललों नने उसने मयारया पहटया थया जजसकया बदलया ल न ेने कने जलयने अकभिययक्तिगण व मनेरने पकत व गयागाँव कने और लजोग उस गयासंव गयने थने इन लजोगलों सने भिह वहयागाँ झगड़या हहआ थया यने लजोग भियागने थने उसह ददौरयान मनेरया पकत नदह मम कगर गयया थया जजसकया आज तक कजोई पतया नहहीं चलया अकभिययक्तिगण नने भिह मयदजो कयछ नहहीं बतयायया।

¶14

प्रश्नर- रसंजजश क्यया हहै ?

¶15

उत्तर:- कजोई रसंजजश नहहीं हहै अकभिययक्तिगण व मनेरने पकत आपस मम दजोस्त थने"

¶16

From perusal of the same, it is an admitted case of the respondent no. 2 that the husband of the respondent no. 2 does not appear to have been kidnapped or murdered by the applicant and co-accused.

¶17

It is further submitted that there is no allegation either in the F.I.R or in the statement of the independent witnesses that the husband of the complainant was kidnapped by the applicant and other co-accused person, so the ingredients for applicability of the offence under Section 364 I.P.C is not attracted and in support of his submission, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment dated 09.02.2021, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2951 of 2009 in re: Dinesh versus State of U.P.

¶18

Learned A.G.A has vehemently opposed the application but unable to dispute the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶19

In view of the above, the matter requires consideration.

¶20

Issue notice to the respondent no. 2.

¶21

Steps be taken within seven working days.

¶22

List this case in the week commencing 05.05.2025,

¶23

as fresh.

¶24

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶25

Order Date :- 26.3.2025 DiVYa

¶26

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

Ashish Singh v. the State of U.P Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Singh v. the State of U.P Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank Thru. Its Chief Manager / Authorised Officer Shri Kunwar Amogh Vs Anil Kumar

Anita Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 4 Others

Raj Bahadur Singh vs Sri Satyapal Singh, Tehsildar /Assistant Collector Mankapur District Gonda

Anil Kumar Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Luvkush vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anand Singh @ Anand Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.