Gauri Shankar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Govt. U.P. Lko. and 10 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2025NA528/90/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of charge-sheet and cancellation of criminal proceedings in a BNS case, citing delay in lodging the FIR and inconsistency between the FIR and medical/CT scan evidence. Court issued notice, permitted deletion of certain respondents, stayed proceedings till next listing.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Criminal Case No.1526 of 2024 (Crime No.332/2024) stayed till next date of listing; permission to delete respondents 3 and 5-11; seven days to take service steps.

Gauri Shankar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 90 of 2025

¶3

Applicant :- Gauri Shankar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Govt. U.P. Lko. And 10 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that due to typographical error / inadvertently Respondent No.3 and Respondent Nos.5 to 11 have been made party in the array of opposite parties, which are not required in the present case and prays for permission to delete the said respondents during course of the day.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the prayer made.

¶8

Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to delete Respondent No.3 and Respondent Nos.5 to 11 in the array of opposite parties during course of the day.

¶9

The present petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed with the following main prayers:

¶10

"1- यह ककि ममानननीय न्यमायमालय आददेश व कनदरश जमारनी किरकिदे आररोप पत सस 0-244/2024 आररोप पत कदनमासकि धमारमा -333/115(2)/352/351(2)/110 बनी०एन०एस० 27.11.2024 अन्ररगर थमानमा - ममाखनी जजलमा - उनमाव जरोककि न्यमायमालय शनीममान न्यमाकयकि ममैजजस्ट ट दे , सफफीपपुर , उनमाव किदे समक्ष दमाजखल ककियमा गयमा हह जरो उपररोक्त यमाकचिकिमा मम ससलग्नकि ससख्यमा -01 किदे रूप मम ससलग्न हह किरो कनरस्र किरनदे किफी किकपमा किरदे।

¶11

2.- यह ककि पमाथर / यमाचिनीगण ममानननीय न्यमायमालय सदे यह भनी कवनम्र पमाथरनमा किररदे हमै ककि आददेश कदननॉकि 18.12.2024 व 28.01.2025 पमाररर दमारमा

¶12

कवपक्षनी सस० -03 न्यमायमालय शनीममान न्यमाकयकि ममैजजस्ट ट दे , सफफीपपुर , जजलमा उनमाव किरो कनरस्र किरनदे किफी किकपमा किरदे। "

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged on 19.10.2024 on 16:30 hours under Sections 333/115(2)/352/351(2)/110 of BNS for the incident alleged to have occurred on 18.10.2024 at 19.00 hours i.e. delay in lodging the F.I.R. is of more than 20 hours without explaining the same.

¶14

It is further submitted that no such incident as alleged in the F.I.R. had ever taken place. The truthfulness of the allegation made in the F.I.R. could be seen from the medical report given by the USD District Hospital, (Male) Unnao enclosing the CT Scan report. The Medical report and CT Scan report are dated 24.10.2024 and in the CT Scan report it has been mentioned against the Column - Clinical brief- "head injury 20 days back", meaning hereby some injury which occurred earlier was mentioned in the F.I.R. lodged five days ago from the date of medical examination report, which makes the story doubtful. The complainant - respondent no.2 keeping grudge against the applicants for the reason the complainant-respondent used to wash the dirty linen at the Well, which is commonly used by all the villagers and in repercussion of the same the F.I.R. has been lodged.

¶15

On the other hand learned A.G.A. has submitted that the injury is there upon the son of the complainant but unable to dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

Issue notice to the opposite party No. 4 .

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted seven working days' time for taking steps.

¶18

Office is directed to submit the service report by the next date of listing.

¶19

List this case in the week commencing 17.03.2025, as fresh.

¶20

Prima facie, the prosecution story in the F.I.R. does not corroborate with the medical evidence, therefore, till the next date of listing, proceedings of Criminal Case No.1526 of 2024, Crime No.332/2024, under Section 333/115(2)/352/351(2)/110

¶21

BNS, Police Station Makhi, District Unnao, shall remain stayed.

¶22

In case, the steps are not taken within time specified, the interim protection granted by this Court shall not be available to the applicants.

¶23

Order Date :- 10.2.2025 S. Kumar

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gauri Shankar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Govt. U.P. Lko. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gauri Shankar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Govt. U.P. Lko. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Boby Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shivdayal Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Miya Alias Mohd Miyan vs State of U.P. and Another

Tabrezul Haque Usmani vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and Another

Chhotey Lal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Satveer vs State of U.P. and Another