Dismissed

Mansur and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2025A482/29743/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a charge framing order. The court held that no effective relief could be granted as the applicant failed to file detailed pleadings or specific material challenging the charge, thus no good ground existed to entertain the petition.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash the charge framing order is dismissed as no good ground exists to entertain it due to lack of detailed pleadings and material.

Mansur and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42757

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29743 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mansur And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party-1.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Applicants- Mansur and 2 Others who are charge sheeted accused and facing trial before court below have approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶9

"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that before this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and quashed the Charge framing order dated 01.03.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.10, Ghaziabad in Session Trial No.637 of 2019 (State Vs. Mansur and others), arising out of Case Crime No.702 of 2018, under Section 323/34, 325/34, 504, 506, 307/34, 302/34 I.P.C., at Police StationBhojpur, District-Ghaziabad, otherwise applicants will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶10

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to stay the effect and operation of Charge framing order dated 01.03.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.10, Ghaziabad in Session Trial No.637 of 2019 (State Vs. Mansur and others), arising out of Case Crime No.702 of 2018, under Section 323/34, 325/34, 504, 506, 307/34, 302/34 I.P.C., at Police Station- Bhojpur, District-Ghaziabad, otherwise the applicants will suffer an irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in any manner whatsoever.

¶11

And/or to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶12

Learned counsel for applicants with refernece to the material on record contends that no offence under any of the charging sections is made out against applicant. As such, no charge could have been framed against applicants by Court below. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for applicants has referred to

¶13

certain documents accompanying this application. On the above premise he therefore contends that the impugned framing of charge order dated 1.3.2024 passed by Court below is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶14

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for state/opposite party-1 contends that applicants were charge sheeted by Investigating Officer by means of charge-sheet/police report dated 19.3.2019 submitted in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The said charge-sheet/police report was neither challenged nor a discharge application under section 227 Cr.P.C. was filed by applicants seeking discharge in aforementioned criminal case. Applicants have challenged the framing of charge order.

¶15

With reference to the material on record, the learned A.G.A. submits that prima facie prosecution of applicants can be sustained. Referring to the three Judges Bench judgement of Supreme Court in Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa, (2020) 14 SCC 556 , the learned A.G.A. submits that the Bench in aforementioned judgement has observed that where a prima facie case is made out, the prosecution of an accused can be sustained. The Court went a step further and held that even in the case of grave suspicion which is different mere suspicion, the prosecution of an accused can be sustained.

¶16

The learned A.G.A. has then taken the court to the affidavit filed in support of present application. With reference to the same, the learned A.G.A. submits that no pleadings have been raised in the affidavit regarding the material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation. Since neither the said material has been detailed in the affidavit filed in support of present application nor the same has been brought on record of this application, therefore there is nothing before this Court to Judge the veracity of the framing of charge order passed by Court below in the light of the papers accompanying the charge-sheet/police report, submitted by the Investigation Officer in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C/material on record of aforementioned sessions Trial. Furthermore, no pleadings have been raised in the affidavit to the effect that as per the papers accompanying the police report neither any offence is made out against applicant or there is no evidence against applicants. In the absence of above, the veracity of the framing of charge order passed by court below cannot be judged on the fanciful doubts raised by the learned counsel for applicants. It is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that in view of above no effective relief can be granted in favour of applicants in present application.

¶17

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is clearly borne out from the record and further the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants, with reference to the record at this stage. As such no good ground exists to entertain the present application.

¶19

In view of above, this application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Arshad

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mansur and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansur and 2 Others v. State of U.P. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepak vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyendra Jain and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumar Trivedi vs State of Up and Another

Rizwan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjeev vs Smt Mithlesh Devi

Parvendra Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. and Another