Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Satya Narayan Parihar @ Satya vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 27788 ALL

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 27788 ALL
Judgement Date : 10 October, 2023

Allahabad High Court
Satya Narayan Parihar @ Satya vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 October, 2023
Bench: Rajiv Gupta




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195225
 
Court No. - 86
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29985 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Satya Narayan Parihar @ Satya
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anupam Anand,Kandarp Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 263 of 2016 (State Vs. Satya Narayan Parihar and another) (Case Crime No. 255 of 2015) under section 302 IPC, Police Station New Agra, District Agra.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the instant case a first information report was lodged against the applicant and two others vide Case Crime No. 255 of 2015, under section 302 IPC. On the basis of said FIR, the police conducted the investigation and submitted charge sheet against co-accused Aditya Thakur and Durgesh under section 302 IPC, on which learned Magistrate has taken cognizanceon 01.07.2015 and committed the case to the court of sessions for trial which was numbered as S.T. No. 387 of 2015 (State Vs. Aditya Thakur and another). Subsequently the police after making further investigation submitted supplementary charge sheet against the applicant and one Jeetu Gautam under section 302 IPC, on which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on 09.05.2016 and the said case was also committed to the court of sessions and numbered as 263 of 2016 (State vs. Satya Narayan Parihar and another).

4. It is further relevant to point out here that session trial no. 387 of 2015 against co-accused Aditya Thakur and Durgesh commenced and the trial court after recording the entire evidence and hearing the accused and the prosecution concluded the trial and acquitted accused persons vide judgment and order dated 11.11.2022. However, other session trial no. 263 of 2016 State Vs. Satya Narayan Parihar and another is still pending for disposal.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that since in other session trial no. 387 of 2015 co-accused Aditya Thakur and Durgesh has already been acquitted by trial court vide judgement and order dated 11.11.2022 and there is no evidence against the applicant, as such, the proceedings against the applicant be also quashed.

6. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the said prayer and has submitted that the case of co-accused has ended in acquittal on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution in their case and that evidence cannot be read for the applicant rather the case of the applicant is to be decided on the basis of evidence which will be adduced in his case and the evidence in the other session trial of co-accused cannot be read for the applicant and, therefore, on the basis of said evidence the entire proceedings in Session Trial No. 263 of 2016 (State Vs. Satya Narayan Parihar and another), under section 302 IPC in respect of applicant cannot be quashed and it has to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced in the case of applicant.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the fact that merely because the co-accused Aditya Thakur @ A.D. and another has been acquitted in the instant case, the entire proceedings against the applicant cannot be quashed. It is well settled principle of law that the case of the accused/applicant is to be decided on its own evidence and merits and the evidence recorded in the case of co-accused cannot be read for the applicant.

8. The prayer made in the instant application is wholly inconceivable and against the settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in several of its decisions.

9. In view of the above, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 10.10.2023

Arti

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter