Manoj Kumar Mall vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 36295 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Manoj Kumar Mall vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 November, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:173151
 
Court No. - 78
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22262 of 2024
 
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Mall
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Mani Tripathi,Avinash Mani Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Shoeb Khan
 

 
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
 

1. Personal affidavit, filed by the learned A.G.A., is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 08.02.2021, cognizance and summoning order dated 02.11.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 4725 of 2021, titled State v. Pravin Kumar Mall and others, arising out of case crime no.44 of 2020, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Hata, District Kushinagar, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kasya, Kushinagar.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no single evidence against the applicant which could substantiate the allegation of conspiracy that the entire episode has been hatched by the applicant. At the time of incident, the applicant was working in Indian Army and the police have falsely implicated the applicant on the basis of previous enmity. On perusal of the statement of injured recorded by the police, the ingredients of Sections 307, 323, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act are not satisfied, therefore, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and, relying upon the statement of the Investigating Officer, which is forming part of the charge sheet, submits that even though the applicant was working in the Indian Army at the time of the incident, but the entire conspiracy was hatched by him. Learned A.G.A. further relied upon the statement of injured Rafiullah, which incriminates the applicant in the commission of a crime.

6. From perusal of cognizance as well as summoning order, no such illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out, so as to warrant any interference by this court in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; 1992 SCC (Cr.), 426. Further, on examination of material brought on record, and on perusal of statements of S.I. Rakesh Roshan Singh, S.I. Ram Laxman Singh, S.I. Amit Kumar Rai, Inspector Pramod Kumar and S.I. Ramesh Puri, Investigating Officers of the case, and the statement of injured Rafiullah, it's prima facie observed that the applicant has hatched entire conspiracy. The ingredients of Sections 307, 323, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, are satisfied. The argument of learned counsel for the applicant may be tested during trial, therefore, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out.

7. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 5.11.2024/A. Tripathi

Justice Vinod Diwakar