Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAVINDRA & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ravindra & Another v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 16782 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5985 (18 November 2005)

 

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

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the accused applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Accused applicants have prayed for quashing of the charge sheet no. 50-

A of 2004 dated 10.9.2004 filed under Section 308, 304, 201 IPC by Police of P.S. Agauta, District Bulandshahr in the Court of II A.C.J.M., Bulandshahar.

The contention of the learned counsel for the accused applicants is that accused have not been named in the F.I.R. and that they have been falsely implicated on the basis of alleged extra judicial confession made before the Pradhan of the Village Anand Prakash Sharma and Sishupal, Amar Singh, Jal Singh, Jagveer Singh, Vijay Singh and Anvesh Singh. According to F.I.R., Neeraj son of the complainant had gone to meet his elder brother Ravindra, who was serving in Britania Factory, Ghaziabad. The dead body of Neeraj was found on 11.1.2004. It has also been mentioned in the F.I.R. that son of the complainant was friendly with Ravindra and Rajkumar sons of Samay Singh and Devendra Jat of Village Madauna. In this matter when the Investigating Officer interrogated the Village Pradhan, he disclosed that the accused  Ravindra and Raghuveer had come to him and had asked for his help as Neeraj was killed by Ravindra. The other witnesses have also stated about the confessional statements made to them by the accused applicants.

Learned A.G.A. has contended that at this stage there is prima facie sufficient evidence to proceed against the applicants and the charge sheet cannot be quashed at the threshold of the proceedings. Perusal of the statement of the witnesses supports the contention as made by the learned A.G.A.

In the circumstances, I do not find any ground to quash the charge sheet and the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being devoid of merits is liable to be rejected.

The application is hereby rejected.

Dated: 18.11.2005

RKS/16782/05


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.