SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 56

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD 
Vikas Budhwar,J.
Om Prakash And 2 Others – Appellant 
versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondent 
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1400 of 2025 
Decided on : 10-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Harish Kumar Tripathi
For the Respondent: G.A.,Rakesh Kumar,Vikash Krishna Murti

Judicial intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited; FIRs from both parties indicate that offences are made out, justifying the continuation of proceedings.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(r)(s) & Section 3(2)(v) - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Application filed to quash proceedings related to FIRs lodged by both parties arising from the same incident - Court found that offences are made out against the applicants based on the FIRs, thus declining to interfere. (Paras 2, 5, 6)

(B) Judicial Intervention - The extent of judicial intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited, and the court must consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose any offence. The existence of FIRs from both factions indicates that the incident is not ruled out. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The applicants sought to quash proceedings arising from FIRs lodged by both parties regarding an incident on 18.6.2023. The opposite party sustained minor injuries, and the applicants claimed to be innocent, arguing that they were wrongfully accused.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIRs indicated that offences were made out against the applicants, and the incident was not ruled out. Therefore, the application to quash was rejected.

Issues: The main issue was whether the FIRs disclosed any offences against the applicants, given that both factions lodged complaints arising from the same incident.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that judicial intervention under Section 482 is limited, and the existence of FIRs from both factions indicates that the incident is not ruled out, thus justifying the continuation of proceedings.

Result: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands rejected.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Budhwar, J.

1. Heard Sri Harish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Bhuval Vishwakarma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vikash Krishna Murti, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. The applicants herein has filed the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding against the charge sheet 27.06.2023, cognizance order dated 23.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Gorakhpur as well as entire proceeding of Session Case No. 804/2024 (State Vs. Om Prakash & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 260/2023, Under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. as well as Section 3(1) (r)(s) & section 3(2)5A SC/ST Act, Police Station- Pipiganj, District- Gorakhpur, pending in the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Gorakhpur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a first information report stood lodged against the applicants and another on 20.6.2023 at 15.41 hours, under Sections 323, 504, 367 of the IPC and read with Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act being No.0260 relatable to the commission of the offence on 18.6.2023 when the opposite party no.2 had gone to the house of Ramharakh Prajapati and when he was sitting then the applicants who are three in number along with other accused barged in their house and thereafter administered beating pursuant whereto opposite party no.2, his son Amit and Chandrashekhar's mother in whose house they were at that time stationed sustained injury. He further submits that so far as the injury of the opposite party no.2, informant Ram Singh is concerned, it was found to be simple and as regards Amit the injury no.5 was sent for radiological examination but nothing was found. He also submits that even with relation to the incident of the same day, dated 20.6.2023, FIR No.0261 stood lodged against the opposite party no.2 and his son along with three and others being FIR No.261, under Sections 147, 323, 506 and 307 of the IPC wherein injuries were sustained by the applicants faction. He while inviting attention towards paragraph no.19 has sought to submit that one Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, who is the nephew of the applicants no. 1 and 2, son of the Bhanu Pratap Jaiswal in the year 2002 had lodged complaint pursuant whereto inquiry was conducted against the Pradhan, Rajesh and Secretary who happens to be of the opposite party no.2 faction which became the motivating factor for inflicting criminality. He next submits that the applicants are innocent.

4. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the hand have submitted that from the narration of the allegations contained in the first information report lodged by the opposite party no.2 faction being FIR No.0260 offences are made out and there happens to be injuries of the first informant and his son and so far as the first information report lodged by the applicants faction on 30.6.2023 against the opposite party no.2 and his son Amit is concerned the same is also under Sections 147, 323, 506 and 307 IPC which also does not rule out the fact that on 18.6.2023 an incident took place.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. What is understandable in the present proceedings is the extent of judicial intervention under Sections 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of the B.N.S.S. Apparently, the Court finds that there happens to be a first information report lodged on 20.6.2023, being No.0260 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 367 IPC read with Section 2(2)(v) of the S.C.S.T. Act by the opposite party no.2 faction wherein Amit and opposite party no.2 sustained injuries along with another first information report by the applicants faction on 20.6.2023 being no.0261 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 506 and 307 of the IPC against the opposite party no.2 and his son Ram Singh and three others. The lodging of the first information report by both the factions relatable to the incident which took place on 18.6.2023 itself

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top