Dismissed

Shiv Vati Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2025A482/2622/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicant challenged an order dismissing her plea for quashing and framing additional charges for rioting and voluntary causing hurt. The High Court dismissed the challenge, finding the alleged procedural discrepancy regarding a citation harmless and ruling that comments on witness testimony did not amount to acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash the impugned order and direct the framing of additional charges was dismissed.

Shiv Vati Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19145

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2622 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Shiv Vati Dixit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko. And 7 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Singh,Sakshi Singh,Sameer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 B.N.S.S.) with the following prayer:-

¶8

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Raebareli under section 216 Cr.P.C, in Sessions Trial No. 438 of 2013 (State Versus Kaushal Kishore Bajpai and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 462-A of 2012, Under Section 147, 148, 149, 395, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station Bachhrawan, District - Raebareli, (contained in Annexure No. 1 of accompanying affidavit) and further, it may kindly be directed that the charges under section 147, 148, 149 and 395 I.P.C. may kindly be added against all the accused persons forthwith in the above noted Sessions Trial, in the interest of justice.

¶9

It is further prayed that till section 147, 148, 149 and 395 Indian Penal Code, 1860 are not added in the charge against the accused persons, further proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 438 of 2013 (State Versus Kaushal Kishore Bajpai and others) may kindly be stayed."

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the police while filing the charge-sheet has dropped three named accused persons i.e. respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8

¶11

but at the time of recording of examination-in-chief of the applicant i.e. P.W.-1 , the summons have been issued against respondent nos. 6,7 and 8 and the charges are going to be framed under Sections 323,504,506 and 452 I.P.C. against these respondents.

¶12

It is further submitted that against the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the respondents had approached this Court by filing APPLICATION U/S 482 No.6004 of 2019 " Kiran and others Vs. State of U.P. and others" which was disposed of by means of judgment and order dated 01.09.2022 and the learned court concerned has wrongly mentioned this fact in the impugned order that the 482 Cr.P.C. application was filed against chargesheet whereas, it was filed against the summoning order.

¶13

The applicant had moved an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of sections and prayed that Sections 147,148, 149 and 395 I.P.C. to be added. The said application of the applicant has been rejected by the court concerned by passing the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 on the ground that firstly, the accused persons had approached the High Court for quashing of the charge-sheet whereas it was against the summoning order and secondly, the charge has already been framed against the accused persons under Sections 323/34, 452/34.504 and 506 I.P.C. and the charges were framed after considering the material on record and no material is available as far as framing the charges under Sections 147,148,149 and 395 I.P.C. and rejected the application on merits.

¶14

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant

¶15

that the main ground of challenge of the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 are firstly, that wrongly the judgment of High Court has been referred while deciding the application and secondly, by making an observations the statement of the complainant as prosecution witness has no value which amounts to the acquittal of the accused persons/respondents. As if the statement of the complainant as prosecution witness has no value then whole case will demolish against the accused persons. Hence, the order is liable to be quashed.

¶16

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the order has been passed after considering each and every aspect of the matter and there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the court concerned.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the wrong reference, as alleged by learned counsel for the applicant regarding the proceedings in the High Court is not acceptable for the reason that the court concerned had mentioned that against the charge-sheet, the accused persons had approached High Court whereas the accused persons had approached this Court by filing Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the summoning under section 319 Cr.P.C., so this discrepancy will not have any effect on the merits of the present case. As far as the second submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that by mentioning that the statement of the complainant in examination-in-chief has no value for the purposes of alteration of the sections amounts to acquittal of the accused persons is also not tenable and not acceptable for the reason that the said

¶18

observations made in the impugned order as it relates to the submission of the applicant for alternation of the sections and it does not mean that it has no value for other purposes or for deciding the case.

¶19

In view of the above discussions the submissions made by the applicant on the grounds mentioned above has no merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶20

Order Date :- 5.4.2025 dk/

¶21

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

Shiv Vati Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Vati Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and 7 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

Kaushal Kumar Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home

Nisha and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Iklakh Siddique @ Iklakh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Alok @ Alos Kumar Alias Anoop Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Salman and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rajkumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. U.P. and 3 Others