Jageshwar Yadav And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 21049 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38445 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Jageshwar Yadav And 5 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vimal Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

Heard Sri Vimal Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Nitin Kesarwani, the learned A.G.A. for the State.

This is an application under Section 482 CrPC preferred by the applicant herein for quashing the entire proceedings of the court below pending before the Court of Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area)/ Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Court No.2, Kannauj as well as the summoning order dated 20.10.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 12 of 2019 (Priti Yadav vs. Jageshwar and others) under Sections 323, 395 IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a complaint had been lodged by the O.P. no.2 against the applicant herein accusing them with relation to commission of certain offences under Sections 323, 395 IPC. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the entire allegation so sought to be leveled are not only false but are bundle of lies just in order to falsely implicate the applicant and rope in.

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there was no occasion for the applicants to have committed the said offence, particularly, when the applicants themselves had approached the O.P. no.2 for negotiations and settlements in relation to the proceedings lodged by the relative of the O.P. no.2 in Case Crime no. 856 of 2018, under Sections 354, 376, 511, 328, 420, 323, 504, 506 IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn the attention of the Court towards the complaint so as to further contend that none of the ingredients occasioning invocation of Section 395 IPC stands attracted.

Countering the said submission, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application while contending that the issues which have been sought to be raised by the applicants centers around factual issues which cannot be dealt with in the present proceedings, particularly at a stage when the trial is yet to commence. It has been further submitted that prima facie also provisions contained under Section 395 IPC stands attracted in view of the fact that as per the complaint, O.P. no.2 was stripped off her valuables including jewellery and cash that too by more than five persons.

Be that as it may, since the present proceedings emanates from lodging of the complaint and this Court is required to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, thus this Court does not possess the jurisdiction akin to an appellate jurisdiction and this Court in view of the judgment in the case of M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 192, cannot delve upon the said factual issues.

Learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any jurisdictional error, so as to enable this Court to interfere in the present proceedings.

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed and consigned to record, leaving it open for the applicants to prefer appropriate application seeking bail and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that once an application is preferred, same shall be dealt with in accordance with law existing on land without being influenced and obsessed by any of the observations made hereinabove.

Order Date :- 14.12.2022

N.S.Rathour