Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 456 (ALL)

Om Prakash v. State of U. P.

2025-03-10

VIKAS BUDHWAR

body2025
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. 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 shows that the incident is not ruled out and besides the same in view of the provisions contained under Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act read with the scheduled appended thereto the offences are made out against the applicants. accordingly, this Court declines to interfere in the present proceedings. 6. In view of above, the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands rejected 7. accordingly, this Court declines to interfere in the present proceedings. 6. In view of above, the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands rejected 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants shall move discharge application to which learned AGA submits that in case a discharge application is being preferred with the same be decided strictly in accordance with law. 8. In the opinion of the Court, this Court has no reason to disbelieve that in case the discharge application if maintainable is being preferred then the same shall be decided with most expedition strictly in accordance with law as per the law of the land taking into account the facts and law on the subject.