Disposed¶14

Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Criminal Procedure – Quashing

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2025A482/6014/2013

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.), 17.2.2025, Application U/S 482 No. 6014 of 2013, Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another. Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing petition against criminal case under Sections 427/504 IPC (N.C.R. No. 6 of 2011, P.S. Inayatnagar, District Faizabad), Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. permission, cognizance order and chargesheet; civil dispute over land and cutting of bamboo; Court held factual and legal questions triable only at trial, refused quashing, disposed of application with liberty to file discharge application within 45 days. No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; no substantive relief granted, but liberty given to the applicant to move a discharge application before the trial court within 45 days. ¶14

Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10046

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6014 of 2013

¶4

Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Balram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Notice has been served to opposite party but no one has turned up on behalf of opposite party.

¶7

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

¶8

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with prayer to quash/set aside the impugned criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 912 of 2011 (State Vs. Jag Prasad and others), under Section 427 and 504 IPC ; impugned permission order dated 15.2.2011, impugned cognizance order dated 12.7.2011 and the chargesheet dated 19.4.2011 filed in N.C.R. No. 6 of 2011; dated 7.1.2011 under Section 427, 504 IPC, Police Station Inayatnagar, District Faizabad.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is civil litigation between the parties regarding land on which bamboo is said to be cut by the applicant. The land is owned by the applicant even though N.C.R. was lodged by the opposite party with false allegations under Section 427, 504 IPC and permission was also obtained from the learned Magistrate illegally under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. It is further submitted that there is no material on record to show that any bamboo was cut by the applicants and mischief was caused to the opposite party, therefore, request to quash the entire proceedings of the case.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶11

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the contents in the N.C.R., permission granted by the learned Magistrate and police report, it appears that there is allegation on the part of opposite party/informant against the applicant that bamboo were cut from the land of the opposite party. When he was objected, he

¶12

abused him that was the reason N.C.R. was lodged under Section 425, 504 IPC and thereafter permission was given by the learned Magistrate on the application of informant under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. as a result investigation was done and police report was filed. Since matter involves the question relating to the facts and law, therefore, it cannot be decided at present stage and veracity can also not be decided but it is possible only during trial, therefore, no relief can be granted in favour of applicant for quashing of criminal proceedings of the case.

¶13

However, applicant may have option to move discharge before the learned court concerned through counsel within a period of 45 days from today that will be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.

¶14

Accordingly, the present application is disposed of finally.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Anurag Singh

¶16

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

Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Munsrif and Anr. Vs State of U.P.

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jaikaran Shukla and Anr. Vs the State of U.P

Mohd. Mohsin vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Suresh and Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Ors.