Dismissed

Gopal Krishna Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2025NA528/3401/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings under POCSO and BNS. The Court held that allegations were serious, the victim statement supported the prosecution, and factual contradictions were matters for the trial court. No legal infirmity or abuse of process was found.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Gopal Krishna Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19421

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3401 of 2025 Applicant :- Gopal Krishna Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 16.11.2024, the cognizance order dated 27.11.2024, as well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 271 of 2024, State v. Gopal Krishna Pandey , arising out of Case Crime No. 140 of 2024, registered under Sections 64(2)(k), 74, and 351(2) of the B.N.S., and Sections 5/6 of POCSO Act at Police Station Newariya, District Jaunpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated at the behest of the victim. It is submitted that other teachers who were present at the time of the alleged incident have not supported the prosecution's version. Further, it is argued that the office gate was not locked from inside, which contradicts the prosecution's claim. Additionally, there are material contradictions in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the complainant's husband allegedly sought to divert the supply of the Mid-Day Meal Scheme for personal consumption with the assistance of the Gram Pradhan. Due to the applicant's resistance, he has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposes the application and submits that there is a specific allegation against the applicant. It is argued that the victim, a 60% disabled minor girl, has given a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which implicates the applicant. The nature and gravity of the offence, coupled with the statutory presumption under the POCSO Act, do not warrant any interference at this stage.

¶9

Upon perusal of the case record and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the allegations levelled against the applicant are serious in nature. The victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., prima facie, supports the prosecution's case. The contradictions in the statements and the alleged enmity between the applicant and the complainant are matters of factual adjudication, which are to be examined by the trial court based on evidence.

¶10

It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, primarily to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. At this stage, the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence cannot be examined in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The material placed on record does not indicate any glaring legal infirmity or abuse of process warranting the quashing of proceedings.

¶11

In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no valid ground for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present application is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Anil K. Sharma

¶13

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

Gopal Krishna Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Krishna Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases