Bitola and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132277

Court No. - 78

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34986 of 2024

Applicant :- Bitola And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Mamta Gupta, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The instant application has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Session Case No.1175 of 2023(Kamlesh Narayan Tiwari Vs. Sumit and others), under sections 323, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station Chaubepur, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.13/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kanpur Dehat and summoning order dated 09.07.2024, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.13/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that with regard to the same incident a FIR was lodged by the applicant no.3 against the opposite party no.2 and others, wherein the applicant no.3 and his son Sumit, both have sustained injuries. Therefore, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the instant complaint case lodged by the opposite party no.2 is nothing but a counter blast case. Therefor, learned counsel for the applicants seeks quashing of the entire proceeding of the instant complaint case lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants herein.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA for the State submits that the story as narrated in the FIR appears to be an incomplete story and if the same is read alongwith the story narrated in the instant complaint case, it completes the story. In the instant complaint case it is alleged that the grand daughter of opposite party no.2, who was aged about 13 years had gone towards agricultural field on 08.06.2023 at 6.30 P.M, having found her alone the son of the applicant no.3, Sumit, caught hold of her with bad intentions and tried to pull the grand daughter of opposite party no.2, she shouted and hearing the noise, the son of the opposite party no.2, reached there on his motorcycle and due to which the scuffle started between the son of opposite party no.2 and the son of applicant herein. The applicants have also reached there armed with lathidanda etc. and all of them have abused and threatened the son of opposite party no.2 and the grand daughter of the opposite party no.2. The other villagers reached there and intervention and in the said process the Sumit has taken away the bicycle of the grand daughter of the opposite party no.2 and Amit has also snatched Rs.600/- from the pocket of the son of opposite party no.2. Police was called, then the police reached on the spot, when no case was registered by the police on behalf of the opposite party no.2, the instant application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no.2.

¶10

The story as narrated in the FIR appears to be an incomplete story and the main cause of action for the incident as alleged in the FIR appears to be the an incident, which has been narrated in the instant complaint case, therefore, both the parties are admitting the incident, as such, and they are trying to give their own version to the incident and the allegations as made in the instant complaint case are duly supported by the statements of the complainant and

¶11

the witness recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Having satisfied with the same the trial court has summoned the son of the applicant no.3 Sumit, for the offece under sections 354, 323, 504, 506, IPC, read with section 8 of the POCSO Act and the other applicants herein were summoned for the offence under sections 323, 504, 506, IPC.

¶12

Thus, this Court do not find any illegality in the summoning order dated 09.07.2024 as well as the entire proceedings initiated by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants herein.

¶13

In view thereof, the instant application is hereby dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.8.2025 VKG

¶15

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bitola 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

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases