Pankaj Tripathi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

1 . The present application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (herein in after referred as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed to quash the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Prayagraj in Criminal Case No. 863 of 2020 (State Vs. Pankaj Tiwari and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 241 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504 of I.P.C., Police Station- Tharwai, District Prayagraj, whereby the learned Magistrate treated the case as complaint.

¶10

2 . Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 25.07.2020 has been lodged against the applicants alleging that the applicants had an old enmity with the first informant and they had obstructed the drain of the temple. The applicants were cleaning the drain. Due to this reason, they came with lathi, danda and lethal weapons with their hands and entered into the house of the first informant and committed marpeet with the first informant and his handicapped younger brother, due to which they sustained grievous injuries. They also threw down mother of the first informant and started pulling her hair, due to which she also sustained internal physical injuries.

¶11

After completing the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. on 26.08.2020 against the applicants. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 1000 of

¶12

2

¶13

2021 quashed the earlier cognizance order dated 26.11.2020 after observing that the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. are non-cognizable offence and the cognizance order has been passed against the provision of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 05.03.2024.

¶14

4 . Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the injury report as well as supplementary report dated 25.07.2020 and 27.07.2020 respectively have been prepared in collusion of concerned doctor. The impugned order has been passed without applying judicial mind. There is a dispute with regard to transaction of purchase and sell of potatoes between the brother of the applicant no. 1 and the injured persons. The order dated 27.09.2024 is second cognizable order, which is not permissible in the eye of law. The impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of fake injury report. It is further submitted that the applicants are accused in the above-noted case.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Magistrate has not passed any cognizance order till today and vide order dated 27.09.2024, the learned Magistrate complied with the order of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶16

In view of the above, the present application deserves no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the present application is dismissed.

¶17

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.)

¶18

Dated: 12.3.2025 Ishan

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pankaj Tripathi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Tripathi 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

Similar cases

Prabhunath and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahadev vs State of U.P. and Another

Karmveer vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rameshwar Prasad Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhtar Jamal and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash Tiwari and Another vs State of U.P. and Another