Dismissed¶16

Lavkush Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2025A482/9995/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application u/s 482 rejected; SC/ST Act case before Special Judge, Sitapur; summoning order dated 08.01.2024; complaint by Govind Pasi; death due to septicemia possibly caused by strangulation; statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.; witnesses Ram Sanehi, Teerath, Champa Devi; no interference warranted.

What did the court decide?

Statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. support the prosecution case ¶15

Lavkush Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9995 of 2024

¶3

Lavkush Kumar And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anupam Rastogi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ravindra Pandey

¶7

Court No. - 16

¶8

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶9

The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.233 of 2022, Govind Pasi Vs. Lavkush Yadav and another, as well as the summoning order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur.

¶10

Sri Anupam Rastogi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the incident as mentioned in the complaint, is false and fabricated and the cause of the death of the deceased is due to shock and there is no injury found on the body of the deceased. He further submits that the medical report is also not supporting the prosecution case and the deceased died natural death. The entire allegation levelled by the complainant is false and fabricated and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Further submission is that the trial court did not apply its mind on the evidence on record. Counsel for the applicant has also drawn the attention of the Court towards the statement of the doctor, who has deposed before the court that shock could have been caused due to reason that the neck was pressed and septicemia could have been developed, which resulted into the death of the deceased.

¶11

On the other hand, Sri Ravindra Pandey, counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. he has stated that applicant used the filthy caste based words and he also pressed the neck of the mother of the

¶12

A482 No. 9995 of 2024

¶13

¶14

complainant and she was pushed down. Thereafter, she fell on the ground and her condition was serious. She was taken to the Primary Health Center and thereafter she was referred to the District Hospital, where she was declared as dead. He has further submitted that statement of the complainant has been supported by the witnesses, Ram Sanehi, Teerath and Champa Devi.

¶15

After going through the record, I find that statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. support the prosecution case. Statement of the doctor also goes to indicate that the death has occurred due to septicemia, which could have been caused due to strangulation. Therefore, this Court does not find any good ground for interference.

¶16

Application is accordingly rejected.

¶17

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶18

November 12, 2025

¶19

Rao/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lavkush Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lavkush Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Ghanshyam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko

Mohammad Hamid Ansari Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Neeraj Patel and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Kamini Awasthi and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vinai Kumar Singh and 9 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home /Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Mohan Gupta and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another