Dismissed

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2025NA528/13667/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 528 BNSS for quashing charge sheet and cognizance order on ground of incorrect charging section dismissed as no good ground found to entertain a matter opposed by the State.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61083

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13667 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Nath Singh,Sarvesh Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶7

Heard Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.

¶8

Perused the record.

¶9

Applicant-Vinod Kumar, who is the first informant, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 BNSS with the following prayer;-

¶10

"It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application by quashing the chargesheet dated 09.11.2024 as well as the cognizance order dated 27.01.2025 of Session Case No. 248 of 2025 (State Vs. Rajat) pertaining to Case Crime No. 282 of 2024, U/s 137(2) & 64(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Jamunapar, District Mathura, now pending in the court of Learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mathura and all consequential proceedings thereon.

¶11

May further be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 and remand the matter back to the learned court below to pass a fresh cognizance order after considering all the material evidence on record in accordance with law, in the interest of justice.

¶12

And or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the fact and circumstances of the case, so that justice be done, otherwise Applicant shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury."

¶13

At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant fairly submits that due to inadvertence, the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court, Allahabad and the District Legal Services Committee, Mathura could not be impleaded as party respondents/opposite parties in present application, even though they are necessary and proper parties. He, therefore, seeks

¶14

permission of Court to amend the cause title of this application by impleading aforementioned authorities as party respondents/ opposite parties 3 and 4 in this application.

¶15

Prayer made by the learned counsel for applicant is bona-fide. Same is not opposed by the learned A.G.A.

¶16

Accordingly, it is allowed.

¶17

Let necessary correction/amendment in the cause title of this application be carried out by the learned counsel for applicant during course of the day.

¶18

Learned counsel for applicant submits that Court concerned while taking cognizance upon the charge sheet/police report dated 19.11.2024 ought to have taken cognizance under Section 65 of BNSS instead of Section 64(1) BNSS. He has then referred to the documents on record, on the basis of which, charge under Section 65(1) BNSS is said to be fully established against opposite party-2. On the above premise, he, therefore, submits that impugned charge sheet/police report submitted by the Investigating Officer as well as the cognizance taking order passed by Court below are manifestly illegal and therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶19

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party1 has vehemently opposed the present application. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Gujrat Vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde (2014) 3 SCC 659, the learned A.G.A. submits that Court concerned or the Jurisdictional Magistrate while taking cognizance upon the charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C., has no jurisdiction to add or subtract the charging Sections mentioned in the charge sheet/police report neither the charge sheet/police report can be quashed, as such, the cognizance taking order passed by Court concerned cannot be said to be illegal. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. thus contends that no interference is warranted by this Court in present application..

¶20

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

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are clearly borne out from the record

¶22

and furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record. In view of above, no good ground exist to entertain the present application.

¶23

As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

It is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶25

Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Vinay

¶26

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

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Chaurasia vs State of U.P. and Another

Tahir Husain vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chhavi Nath Singh Alias Chhunna vs State of U.P. and Another

Tahir Husain vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chhavi Nath Singh Alias Chhunna vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another