Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AJAY MALHOTRA versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ajay Malhotra v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 7530 of 2005 [2007] RD-AH 1 (1 January 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Reserved

Criminal Misc. Application No. 7530 of 2005

Ajay Malhotra Vs. State of U.P.  and another.

Hon'ble S.K. Jain, J.

Heard Sri Sharad Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for opposite party no. 2 and the learned AGA for the State.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding criminal case no. 583 of 2005, State Vs. Ajay Malhotra u/s 323 and 504 I.P.C. pending in the court of III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, arising out of case crime no. 371 of 1997, P.S. Sector 20, Noida, district Gautam Budh Nagar. The incident took place on 2/5/1997 at 10.00 p.m. and first information report was lodged on 4.5.1997 at 8.20 p.m. Three persons Ajay Malhotra (applicant), Vinnet Grover and Deepak Rana were named.

As per the allegations in the F.I.R. on 2.5.1997 at about 10.00 p.m. Informant Col. V.P.S. Chauhan had gone to Arun Bihar Institute Club.   When he was going towards car parking the three accused attacked him, abused him and did Marpeet with him. At that time three accused were in drunken state. Ajay Malhotra (applicant) caused injuries to him by Chhura. On mobile the accused called their companions and did Marpeet with the informant in front of Arun Bihar Institute. Crowd assembled and seeing the crowd the accused persons ran away. Some people admitted the informant in unconscious state in Sippy Nursing Home and thereafter he was shifted to Army Hospital, where he was under treatment and sent the written report to the police station. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against  Ajay   Malhotra (applicant) and other co-accused, namely, Vinnet Grover and Deepak Rana under Section 323 and 504 I.P.C. Charges were framed against other two accused persons and since the applicant absented himself his case  was separated in the trial. Victim injured Col. V.P.S. Chauhan was examined as PW1 and since he did not support the prosecution story, he was declared  hostile. Consequently, on 3.11.2004 the judgement was pronounced against the two accused persons, namely, Vineet Grover and Deepak Rana and both were acquitted. Copy of the judgement is annexed as Annexure - 7 to the affidavit field by the applicant.

I have perused the certified copy of the judgement passed in criminal case no. 6852 of 2004 State Vs. Vineet Grover and others relating to case crime no. 371 of 1997, under section 323 and 504 I.P.C. of P.S. Sector  20, Noida. A perusal of the same suggests that applicant Ajay Malhotra absented himself during trial and the case of co-accused Vineet Grover and Deepak   Rana were separated. Complainant Col. V.P.S. Chauhan was examined as PW1 who was alleged to have been injured in the Marpeet done by the three accused persons. He deposed before the court that three accused met him        in the car parking in a drunken state. They spoke to him in a loud voice and     crowd assembled there. The occurrence took place at about 10-00  p.m. He was pushed by the people. He could not see his assailants. Thus he did not support the prosecution story. Learned Magistrate acquitted co- accused Deepak Rana and Vineet Grover.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that from the perusal of the judgement (Annexure-7) it is amply clear that the complainant of the  case Col. V.P.S. Chauhan did not come forward to support the prosecution case as such the present proceedings  against the applicant before the trial court is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that to the facts and circumstances of the present case principle of stare decisive is squarely applicable and proceedings against the applicant are liable to be quashed. In support of the contention the learned counsel has placed reliance on Wazir Yadav  Vs. State of U.P. 2004 Criminal Misc. Application No. 378 of 2004, where it has been held that if the circumstances of the case are such that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings against the accused and the result of the proceedings is very obvious, it can safely be concluded that  even if the trial is allowed to continue it will only end in the order of acquittal and no  fruitful purpose would be gained if the proceedings are allowed to continue in respect of other accused. Further reliance has been placed in the case  of Manoj Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (49) ACC 302, where this court has held that since the two accused were acquitted and the same evidence is to be  adduced for the second time, it will amount to wastage of time as there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and from perusal of  Annexure-7 it is amply clear that the two accused Deepak Rana and Vineet Grover have been acquitted as per Annexure-7 as the informant who was alleged to have been injured in the occurrence specifically stated that he could not see his assailants. No other witness was examined.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am convinced that the proceedings against the applicant should be quashed  in accordance with the principle of stare decisive.

In view of aforesaid discussion the application is allowed and the proceedings of Regular Case No.  583 of 2005, State Vs. Ajay Malhotra pending in the court of III Additional Chief  Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, arising out of case crime no. 371 of 1997, under section 323 and 504 I.P.C. P.S. Sector 20, Noida, district Gautam Budh Nagar are hereby quashed.  

Dt.       May, 2007

KCS          


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.