Jyoti Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 321 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 76
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 91 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Jyoti Tiwari
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Tiwari Abhishek Rajesh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

Heard Sri Tiwari Abhishek Rajesh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri I. S. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet no. 179A of 2012 dated 31.10.2012 as well as cognizance order dated 03.01.2013 and non-bailable warrant order dated 11.09.2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 204 of 2012, under Section 302, 201, 120-B and 34 of I.P.C., Police Station Pilkhua, District Hapur (Panchsheel Nagar), pending in the court of C.J.M. Hapur (Panchsheel Nagar), with a further prayer to stay further proceeding in the aforesaid case.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the charge sheet has been submitted on 01.04.2012 in abscondance and he has drawn attention to paragraph no. 14 of the affidavit in which it is stated that she has no concern and when she returned to her maternal home in the month of March, 2020 then she came to know regarding the present case being pending against her. He has further drawn attention to page no. 49 of the paper book in which in the judgment delivered in S.T. No. 1718 of 2012 State v. Rajiv Ratan Mohan Awasthi and two others, under Section 302/34, 201 of I.P.C. read with Section 120-B of I.P.C., the court had observed in para no. 37 that accused Rajiv Ratan Mohan Awasthi was found guilty of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. while against other accused charge under Section 120-B of I.P.C. was dropped. On the basis of this, it is argued by him that the Court against other co-accused has already given finding that charge under 120-B was not found proved, therefore, the charge sheet against the applicant deserves to be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of quashing the charge sheet.

This Court does not find any merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant because it is apparent that the applicant was absconding since 01.04.2012 when charge sheet was submitted against her.

In view of the long absconding, the applicant is not entitled for any relief to be given by this Court, accordingly, this application is dismissed.

Order Date :- 7.1.2021

VPS