Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Salekh Alias Seelak And Others v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 9624 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 11281 (11 July 2006)


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).


Court No. 41

Criminal Misc Application No. 9624 of 2005

Salekh @ Seelak and others Vs. State of U.P. and another

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

Application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet in case crime no. 608 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 34 IPC, P.S. Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge(F.T.C.-2) Ghaziabad.

Heard Sri R. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S. K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

The brief facts giving rise to this application are that opposite party no. 2 Satpal filed a First Information Report against Jitendra, Rakamveer and others alleging that Jitendra, Rakamveer and one more person fired at Inder and their driver Ballu and in the incident Inder received fatal injuries. As per the First Information Report besides the complainant Ramphal, Jagdish, Badal were also present at that time. It has also been alleged in the report that there was some dispute between Inder and D.P. Yadav and on that account this incident took place.

During investigation Ramphal, Badal, Ballu and Jagdish filed affidavits alleging that Jitendra was not one of the assailant. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against Rakamveer and the three applicants under the above noted sections. Learned Trial Court also framed the charges against the applicants vide order dated 22.3.2005. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of D.P. Yadav who at the relevant time was the member of parliament and has exercised his influence and on that account the name of Jidtendra Kumar, who happens to be nephew of D.P. Yadav was deleted and D.P. Yadav was also not charge sheeted. He has also contended that the witnesses have stated in their affidavits that Jitendra was not the assailant and that some unknown persons had committed crime.

Against it learned counsel for the informant has contended that the informant has not given any affidavit and that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he has named this applicant also.

Learned counsel for the informant has also contended that the correctness of the allegation can be seen in the Trial an the fact that some of the witnesses have given affidavits during investigation is not of much importance.

Learned A.G.A. has also contended that on the basis of the evidence given by the witnesses, it cannot be said that these applicants were not assailants as in the affidavits, it has not been mentioned that these appellants were not there. In the affidavits, only this fact has been mentioned that Jitendra did not participate in the incident.

In any case, these affidavits are not of much importance at this stage. The complainant opposite party no. 2 has made statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as the other witnesses have also been examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and they have named these applicants as the assailants. The affidavits as allegedly filed by the witnesses during investigation are not of much importance as they cannot be read into evidence. While framing the charge prima facie case has to be seen and the accused can be discharged under Section 227 Cr.P.C. if there are not sufficient grounds for proceeding against them. Therefore I come to the conclusion that there is no ground to quash the charge sheet and to discharge the accused persons and the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is without any merit and is liable to be rejected.

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.

Dated: 11.7.2006



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


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 |

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