Mahesh vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 5644 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mahesh vs State Of U.P. on 3 March, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29325
 
Court No. - 74
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1322 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Mahesh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Indrajeet Yadav, learned AGA for the State.

2. This Court on 17.01.2025 directed the learned AGA to serve notice upon the opposite party No. 2 and there happens to be an affidavit dated 04.02.2025 regarding service of notice to opposite party No. 2. Till the dictation of the order, nobody has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2.

3. This is an application U/S 482 filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 574 of 2020 (Anil Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar Verma and others), U/s 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)da of SC/ST Act, P.S. Janakpuri, District Saharanpur, including the summoning order dated 19.01.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a complaint case stood lodged by the opposite party No. 2 against the applicants as well as two others purported to be under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 384, 452 IPC read with Section 3(1) of SC/ST Act relatable to the commission of the offence on 16.03.2020 at 6 in the evening whereby the opposite party No. 2 who had taken certain financial assistance from Raj Kumar who is an employee in a local body establishment, post return of the entire loan amount and request being made for tendering the receipt insistence was being made to pay the interest amount. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the narration of the allegations contained in the complaint itself shows that only general allegations have been levelled regarding giving a blow or pushing and administering beating upon the opposite party No. 2 to all the three accused marked in the complaint and further hurling of caste based abuses. He further submits that there has been delay in lodging the complaint also.

5. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that the allegations contained in the complaint itself shows commission of offence particularly when the injuries are borne out. He further submits that this Court may not interfere at this stage in the present proceedings.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State, in the opinion of the Court, nature of the allegations contained in complaint is to be seen as to whether offences are made out or not. Apparently, in the complaint itself allegations have been levelled upon all the accused including the applicant regarding beating pushing and giving a blow and also hurling of caste based abuses in a place which is within the public view. The question with regard to non assignment of a specific rule and the nature of injuries would not be of much relevance at this stage particularly when invocation of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of the BNSS is being sought. The interference is declined.

6. Thus, interference is declined and the application is consigned to record.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants seeks direction for consideration of his bail application in light of the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; decided on 07.10.2021 in S.L.P. No.5191 of 2021

8. In the opinion of the Court, once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land without any delay.

Order Date :- 3.3.2025

Rajesh