Chitranshu Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

1. Heard Sri Harish Chandra Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Verma, the learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as perused the record.

2. The instant application has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 32786 of 2022 "State Versus Chitranshu and others" arising out of Case Crime No. 232 of 2019 Under Sections 279/304-A I.P.C. Police Station-Sarojini Nagar, District-Lucknow pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, IIIrd, Lucknow and impugned order dated 26.9.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, IIIrd, Lucknow by which the discharge application dated 20.8.2025 has been rejected, contained in Annexure No.1 to the accompanying affidavit, in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 32786 of 2022 "State Versus Chitranshu and others" arising out of Case Crime No. 232 of 2019 Under Sections 279/304-A I.P.C. Police Station-Sarojini Nagar, District-Lucknow pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, IIIrd, Lucknow, in the interest of justice."

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:- (i) An FIR registered as Case Crime No. 0232/2019 was lodged on 21.04.2019, under Sections- 279 and 304-A IPC at Police Station- Sarojini Nagar, District- Lucknow South (Commissionerate Lucknow). (ii) As per the aforesaid FIR, the incident/accident occurred on 12.04.2019 and two vehicles were involved in the incident/accident i.e. (s) Scorpio bearing Registration No. UP32FA8000 and (b) Tractor bearing Registration No. UP71B7420, which crushed the deceased namely Roshni, who was fallen down from the scooty driven by Neha on account of opening the door by a person sitting in the Vehicle No. 2 A482 No. 10025 of 2025 UP32FA8000. (iii) It is to be noted here that Roshni is the daughter of Smt. Radha w/o Bahadur R/o R.T. Office, Munshi Khera, Police Station- Sarojini Nagar, District- Lucknow. (iv) It is also to be noted here that Neha, who was driving the scooty, is the daughter of Neelu Pal. (v) The statement (annexed as Annexure No. 7 of the instant application) on record of Neelu Pal w/o Sunil Pal R/o Munshi Kheda, Police Station- Sarojini Nagar, District- Lucknow, indicates that she (Neha Pal) was driving the scooty on the date of incident i.e. on 12.04.2019. (vi) It is also relevant to indicate here that informant was not present at the situs/place of incident, in which Roshni was crushed by the Tractor bearing Registration No. UP71B7420. (vii) The copy of the statement of informant/Smt. Radha on record, annexed as Annexrue No. 5 at page 52 of the paper book, indicates that Neha Pal was driving the Scooty on 12.04.2019. (viii) The typed copy of supplementary statement/Majeed Bayan of the informant/Smt. Radha indicates different dates of incident i.e. 09.04.2019, 12.04.2019 and 09.12.2019, which could be typographical error. (ix) The copy of statement of Neelu Pal w/o Sunil Pal on record, annexed as Annexure No. 7 of the instant application, indicates that the accident occurred on 09.04.2019 and vehicles involved in the accident were Scorpion Jeep bearing Registration No. UP32FA8000 and Tractor bearing Registration No. UP71B7420. (x) The copy of statement of eye-witness namely Vinod Kumar on record, annexed as Annexure No. 8 of the instant application, indicates that the deceased was crushed on 09.04.2019 by Tractor bearing Registration No. U.P. 71B7420 and the second vehicle, on account of which the deceased fell down from the scooty and crushed by the Tractor, was the Scorpion. (xi) It is also to be noted here that no technical inspection was carried out of the scooty and also the vehicles bearing Registration No. UP32FA8000 and Tractor bearing Registration No. UP71B7420 involved accident.

4. In the aforesaid background of the case, the applicant had earlier approached this Court by means of the Application U/S 482 No. 6317 of 2025 (Chitranshu @ Chitranshu Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another), which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2025. The order dated 06.08.2025 reads as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant application has been filed with prayer to quash the summoning order dated

4.1.2022 passed in Case No.32780/2022 arising out of case crime no. 232/2019 under sections 279 and 304-A IPC at P.S. Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow as well as charge sheet dated 10.12.2018 submitted by investigating officer in the aforesaid crime number and entire criminal proceeding in pursuant thereto. 3 A482 No. 10025 of 2025

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that there is no evidence at all against the applicant and only on the basis of statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the whole proceeding has been initiated and chargesheet has been filed. He added that the criminal proceedings against the present applicant is nothing but harassment.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that there is no abuse of process of law and only factual matrix has been agitated before this before this Court and that could not be gone into at this stage, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thus the application is liable to be dismissed.

5. After the argument at length, learned counsel for the applicant submits that interest of justice would be sub-served, if this Court directs the court below to permit the applicant to appear before the court below and file an application of discharge. He further submits that the court below may be directed to decide the discharge application within stipulated period of time, as may be fixed by this Court.

6. Learned AGA for the State has no objection to the aforesaid submission.

7. In view of aforesaid, the applicant is permitted to file an application for discharge before the court below within a period of two weeks from today and if such an application is filed, the same shall be decided within a further period of 30 days, strictly in accordance with law.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of."

5. A perusal of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the above quoted order indicates that after arguments at some length, the learned counsel for the applicant prayed for the liberty from this Court to prefer an application seeking discharge and the said prayer was acceded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

6. In the light of above quoted order dated 06.08.2025, the applicant preferred an application seeking discharge before the court of Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow (in short "Magistrate"), which has been rejected by the Magistrate by the impugned order dated 26.09.2025. The relevant portion of the order dated 26.09.2025 reads as under:- "सुना तथा पत्रावली का पिरशीलन िकया। पत्रावली के पिरशीलन से िविदत होता है िक वािदनी श्रीमती राधा द्वारा तहरीर व िववेचक को िदये गये अपने बयान अंतगर्त धारा- 161 सी.आर.पी.सी. में अपने कथनो का समथर्न िकया गया है ओर अपने के स डायरी पचार्-2 में अंिकत बयान में कथन है िक अपने बयान में कथन िकया है िक "िदनांक 12.04.2019 को मेरी पुत्री रोशनी को नेहापाल लेकर अपनी लडकी गुिडयां की स्कू टी पर बैठकर बाजार जा रही थी समय करीब 5 बजे शाम को बीमा हािस्पटल के क सामने अचानक आगे जा रही गाडी न० यू0पी032एफ.ए. 800 के गाडी का फाटक खुल गया और पीछे से आ रही स्कू टी की टककर हो गयी पीछे बैठी मेरी लडकी रोशनी छटककर सडक पर िगर गयी उसके पीछे तेज रफ्तार से टैक्टर न० यू०पी० 71 बी. 7420 में बच्ची को कु चल िदया िजससे रोशनी की मौके पर ही मृत्यु हो गयी।" इसी प्रकार चस्मदीद गवाह िवनोद कु मार िजनका बयान के स डायरी- 5 में अंिकत है उन्होने अपने 161 सी.आर. पी. के बयान में कथन िकया है िक िदनांक 09.04.2019 को मैं बीमा अस्पताल के पास से जैसे ही गुजर रहा था देखा िक एक कार का फाटक खुल गया उससे स्कू टी टक्करा गयी स्कू टी पर बैठी दो लडकी और छोटी बच्ची सडक पर िगर पडे पीछे से आ रहा एक टैक्टर का चालक ने तेजी व लापरवाही से चलाते हुये छोटी बच्ची पर टैक्टर चढा िदया 4 A482 No. 10025 of 2025 िजससे उसकी मौके पर मृत्यु हो गयी और टैक्टर लेकर भाग गया तथा स्कािपयो वाला भी भाग गया भीड लग गयी मैं भी मौके पर था जो मैने देखा था आपको सही-सही बता िदया वही मेरा बयान है। अन्य गवाह नाम नीलू पाल ने भी अपने बयान में कथन िकया है िक िदनांक 09.04.2019 को मै बाजार जा रही थी रोशनी रोने लगी तब मै गुिडया को स्कू टी के पीछे बैठाकर उसके गोद में रोशनी को लेकर जा रहा स्कािपयों यू०पी० 32 एफ.ए. 800 का अचानक फाटक खुल गया मेरी स्कू टी फाटक में टकराकर हम लोग सडक पर िगर पडे रोशनी कु छ दूर सडक पर जा िगरी पीछे से आ रहा टैक्टर यू०पी० 71 बी 7420 का चालक ने तेजी व लापरवाही से चलाते हुये रोशनी के उपर टैक्टर चढा िदया िजससे मौके पर ही रोशनी की मृत्यु हो गयी। प्रस्तुत मामला एक सड़क दुघर्टना से संबंिधत है िजसमें अिभयुक्तगण एक स्कॉिपयो वाहन चालक और दूसरा एक ट्रैक्टर चालक हैं। इनके िवरुद्ध आरोप है िक उनकी लापरवाही से स्कू टी सवार बच्ची की मृत्यु हो गई। वादी द्वारा िलिखत तहरीर में स्पष्ट उल्लेख िकया गया है िक स्कॉिपयो (UP32BK3445) के चालक ने चलते वाहन का अचानक दरवाज़ा खोल िदया, िजससे स्कू टी अिनयंित्रत होकर िगर गई और पीछे से आ रहे ट्रैक्टर ने बच्ची को कु चल िदया। प्राथिमक सूचना िरपोटर् (एफआईआर) में भी घटना का स्पष्ट िववरण िदया गया है, िजसमें दोनों वाहनों की भूिमका स्पष्ट है। के स डायरी के पृष्ठ संख्या 2 में वादी की धारा 161 सीआरपीसी की बयान में भी यही तथ्य दोहराए गए हैं। सीडी संख्या 5 में दो प्रत्यक्षदशीर् गवाहों ने भी घटना की पुिष्ट की है, यद्यिप उनके द्वार घटना की ितिथ में कु छ अंतर बताया गया है, िकतु घटना का िववरण समान है। प्रकरण अिभलेख का परीक्षण करने पर यह ज्ञात होता है िक वादी द्वारा दजर् एफआईआर में स्पष्ट रूप से अिभयुक्त स्कॉिपयो चालक एवं ट्रैक्टर चालक के िवरुद्ध आरोप लगाए गए हैं। वािदनी के धारा 161 सीआरपीसी के अंतगर्त िदए गए कथन तथा अन्य प्रत्यक्षदशीर् गवाहों के बयानों से घटना की पुिष्ट होती है। माननीय सवोर्च्च न्यायालय द्वारा State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 में यह िसद्धांत प्रितपािदत िकया गया िक, चाजर् तय करने अथवा िडस्चाजर् पर िवचार करते समय न्यायालय को के वल यह देखना होता है िक अिभयुक्त के िवरुद्ध अपराध िकए जाने की प्रथम दृष्टया संभावना है या नहीं। इसी तरह, State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj, AIR 1997 SC 2041 में भी वह स्पष्ट िकया गया िक िडस्चाजर् के स्तर पर न्यायालय द्वारा साक्ष्य का मूल्यांकन करने की आवश्यकता नहीं है, बिल्क के वल यह देखना है िक क्या अिभयुक्त के िवरुद्ध पयार्प्त सामग्री उपलब्ध है। प्रकरण में वादी की तहरीर, अिभयोजन गवाहों के बयानों तथा वाहन संख्या के स्पष्ट उल्लेख से प्रथम दृष्टया अिभयुक्तगण द्वारा अपराध िकया जाना प्रतीत होता है। घटना की ितिथ में अंतर होना गवाही की िवश्वसनीयता पर इस स्तर पर िनणार्यक नहीं माना जा सकता। अतः न्यायालय का मत है िक अिभयुक्त िचत्रांशु को िडस्चाजर् िकया जाना उिचत नहीं होगा। आदेश अिभयुक्त िचत्रांशु का धारा 239 दंड प्रिक्रया संिहता के अंतगर्त प्रस्तुत प्राथर्ना पत्र िनरस्त िकया जाता है। पत्रावली वास्ते साक्ष्य अंतगर्त धारा-244 दं०प्र०स० िदनांक 05-11-2025 को पेश हो।"

7. Considered the aforesaid facts of the case and also the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as by the learned AGA of the State of U.P., as per whom while dealing with the matters seeking discharge mini trial is not permissible, and also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments passed in the case(s) of State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39; Union of India vs. Prafull Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC 4; Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460; Tarun Jit Tejpal vs. State of Goa and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1053; Hazrat Deen vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1781; State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294 and Vishnu Kumar Shukla vs. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1582 . 5 A482 No. 10025 of 2025

8. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that prima facie the case appears to be there of the aforementioned sections against the applicant and therefore this Court finds that no interference is required in the matter. It is for the following facts(s)/reason(s):- (i) Indisputedly, the applicant is the owner in possession of the vehicle bearing Registration No. UP32FA8000 and this number finds place in the FIR itself, lodged with some delay, which is the subject matter of the trial. (ii) Based upon the plea related to technical examination of the vehicles in issue, the entire criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. (iii) Whether the vehicle involved was the Scorpion or Safari can be dealt with by the trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties in this regard. (iv) The date of the incident indicated in Majeed Bayan of the informant is also the subject matter of the trial based upon the evidence adduced in this regard. (v) Before this Court only typed copies of the statements of witnesses have been brought on record and as such, the veracity of these statements cannot checked.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is dismissed. Cost made easy. December 8, 2025 Arun/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.)

1. Heard Sri Harish Chandra Yadav, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Verma, the learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as perused the record.

2. The instant application has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 32786 of 2022 "State Versus Chitranshu and others" arising out of Case Crime No. 232 of 2019 Under Sections 279/304-A I.P.C. Police Station-Sarojini Nagar, District-Lucknow pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, IIIrd, Lucknow and impugned order dated 26.9.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, IIIrd, Lucknow by which the discharge application dated 20.8.2025 has been rejected, contained in Annexure No.1 to the accompanying affidavit, in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 32786 of 2022 "State Versus Chitranshu and others" arising out of Case Crime No. 232 of 2019 Under Sections 279/304-A I.P.C. Police Station-Sarojini Nagar, District-Lucknow pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, IIIrd, Lucknow, in the interest of justice."

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:- (i) An FIR registered as Case Crime No. 0232/2019 was lodged on 21.04.2019, under Sections- 279 and 304-A IPC at Police Station- Sarojini Nagar, District- Lucknow South (Commissionerate Lucknow). (ii) As per the aforesaid FIR, the incident/accident occurred on 12.04.2019 and two vehicles were involved in the incident/accident i.e. (s) Scorpio bearing Registration No. UP32FA8000 and (b) Tractor bearing Registration No. UP71B7420, which crushed the deceased namely Roshni, who was fallen down from the scooty driven by Neha on account of opening the door by a person sitting in the Vehicle No. 2 A482 No. 10025 of 2025 UP32FA8000. (iii) It is to be noted here that Roshni is the daughter of Smt. Radha w/o Bahadur R/o R.T. Office, Munshi Khera, Police Station- Sarojini Nagar, District- Lucknow. (iv) It is also to be noted here that Neha, who was driving the scooty, is the daughter of Neelu Pal. (v) The statement (annexed as Annexure No. 7 of the instant application) on record of Neelu Pal w/o Sunil Pal R/o Munshi Kheda, Police Station- Sarojini Nagar, District- Lucknow, indicates that she (Neha Pal) was driving the scooty on the date of incident i.e. on 12.04.2019. (vi) It is also relevant to indicate here that informant was not present at the situs/place of incident, in which Roshni was crushed by the Tractor bearing Registration No. UP71B7420. (vii) The copy of the statement of informant/Smt. Radha on record, annexed as Annexrue No. 5 at page 52 of the paper book, indicates that Neha Pal was driving the Scooty on 12.04.2019. (viii) The typed copy of supplementary statement/Majeed Bayan of the informant/Smt. Radha indicates different dates of incident i.e. 09.04.2019, 12.04.2019 and 09.12.2019, which could be typographical error. (ix) The copy of statement of Neelu Pal w/o Sunil Pal on record, annexed as Annexure No. 7 of the instant application, indicates that the accident occurred on 09.04.2019 and vehicles involved in the accident were Scorpion Jeep bearing Registration No. UP32FA8000 and Tractor bearing Registration No. UP71B7420. (x) The copy of statement of eye-witness namely Vinod Kumar on record, annexed as Annexure No. 8 of the instant application, indicates that the deceased was crushed on 09.04.2019 by Tractor bearing Registration No. U.P. 71B7420 and the second vehicle, on account of which the deceased fell down from the scooty and crushed by the Tractor, was the Scorpion. (xi) It is also to be noted here that no technical inspection was carried out of the scooty and also the vehicles bearing Registration No. UP32FA8000 and Tractor bearing Registration No. UP71B7420 involved accident.

4. In the aforesaid background of the case, the applicant had earlier approached this Court by means of the Application U/S 482 No. 6317 of 2025 (Chitranshu @ Chitranshu Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another), which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2025. The order dated 06.08.2025 reads as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant application has been filed with prayer to quash the summoning order dated

4.1.2022 passed in Case No.32780/2022 arising out of case crime no. 232/2019 under sections 279 and 304-A IPC at P.S. Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow as well as charge sheet dated 10.12.2018 submitted by investigating officer in the aforesaid crime number and entire criminal proceeding in pursuant thereto. 3 A482 No. 10025 of 2025

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that there is no evidence at all against the applicant and only on the basis of statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the whole proceeding has been initiated and chargesheet has been filed. He added that the criminal proceedings against the present applicant is nothing but harassment.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that there is no abuse of process of law and only factual matrix has been agitated before this before this Court and that could not be gone into at this stage, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thus the application is liable to be dismissed.

5. After the argument at length, learned counsel for the applicant submits that interest of justice would be sub-served, if this Court directs the court below to permit the applicant to appear before the court below and file an application of discharge. He further submits that the court below may be directed to decide the discharge application within stipulated period of time, as may be fixed by this Court.

6. Learned AGA for the State has no objection to the aforesaid submission.

7. In view of aforesaid, the applicant is permitted to file an application for discharge before the court below within a period of two weeks from today and if such an application is filed, the same shall be decided within a further period of 30 days, strictly in accordance with law.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of."

5. A perusal of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the above quoted order indicates that after arguments at some length, the learned counsel for the applicant prayed for the liberty from this Court to prefer an application seeking discharge and the said prayer was acceded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

6. In the light of above quoted order dated 06.08.2025, the applicant preferred an application seeking discharge before the court of Judicial Magistrate-III, Lucknow (in short "Magistrate"), which has been rejected by the Magistrate by the impugned order dated 26.09.2025. The relevant portion of the order dated 26.09.2025 reads as under:- "सुना तथा पत्रावली का पिरशीलन िकया। पत्रावली के पिरशीलन से िविदत होता है िक वािदनी श्रीमती राधा द्वारा तहरीर व िववेचक को िदये गये अपने बयान अंतगर्त धारा- 161 सी.आर.पी.सी. में अपने कथनो का समथर्न िकया गया है ओर अपने के स डायरी पचार्-2 में अंिकत बयान में कथन है िक अपने बयान में कथन िकया है िक "िदनांक 12.04.2019 को मेरी पुत्री रोशनी को नेहापाल लेकर अपनी लडकी गुिडयां की स्कू टी पर बैठकर बाजार जा रही थी समय करीब 5 बजे शाम को बीमा हािस्पटल के क सामने अचानक आगे जा रही गाडी न० यू0पी032एफ.ए. 800 के गाडी का फाटक खुल गया और पीछे से आ रही स्कू टी की टककर हो गयी पीछे बैठी मेरी लडकी रोशनी छटककर सडक पर िगर गयी उसके पीछे तेज रफ्तार से टैक्टर न० यू०पी० 71 बी. 7420 में बच्ची को कु चल िदया िजससे रोशनी की मौके पर ही मृत्यु हो गयी।" इसी प्रकार चस्मदीद गवाह िवनोद कु मार िजनका बयान के स डायरी- 5 में अंिकत है उन्होने अपने 161 सी.आर. पी. के बयान में कथन िकया है िक िदनांक 09.04.2019 को मैं बीमा अस्पताल के पास से जैसे ही गुजर रहा था देखा िक एक कार का फाटक खुल गया उससे स्कू टी टक्करा गयी स्कू टी पर बैठी दो लडकी और छोटी बच्ची सडक पर िगर पडे पीछे से आ रहा एक टैक्टर का चालक ने तेजी व लापरवाही से चलाते हुये छोटी बच्ची पर टैक्टर चढा िदया 4 A482 No. 10025 of 2025 िजससे उसकी मौके पर मृत्यु हो गयी और टैक्टर लेकर भाग गया तथा स्कािपयो वाला भी भाग गया भीड लग गयी मैं भी मौके पर था जो मैने देखा था आपको सही-सही बता िदया वही मेरा बयान है। अन्य गवाह नाम नीलू पाल ने भी अपने बयान में कथन िकया है िक िदनांक 09.04.2019 को मै बाजार जा रही थी रोशनी रोने लगी तब मै गुिडया को स्कू टी के पीछे बैठाकर उसके गोद में रोशनी को लेकर जा रहा स्कािपयों यू०पी० 32 एफ.ए. 800 का अचानक फाटक खुल गया मेरी स्कू टी फाटक में टकराकर हम लोग सडक पर िगर पडे रोशनी कु छ दूर सडक पर जा िगरी पीछे से आ रहा टैक्टर यू०पी० 71 बी 7420 का चालक ने तेजी व लापरवाही से चलाते हुये रोशनी के उपर टैक्टर चढा िदया िजससे मौके पर ही रोशनी की मृत्यु हो गयी। प्रस्तुत मामला एक सड़क दुघर्टना से संबंिधत है िजसमें अिभयुक्तगण एक स्कॉिपयो वाहन चालक और दूसरा एक ट्रैक्टर चालक हैं। इनके िवरुद्ध आरोप है िक उनकी लापरवाही से स्कू टी सवार बच्ची की मृत्यु हो गई। वादी द्वारा िलिखत तहरीर में स्पष्ट उल्लेख िकया गया है िक स्कॉिपयो (UP32BK3445) के चालक ने चलते वाहन का अचानक दरवाज़ा खोल िदया, िजससे स्कू टी अिनयंित्रत होकर िगर गई और पीछे से आ रहे ट्रैक्टर ने बच्ची को कु चल िदया। प्राथिमक सूचना िरपोटर् (एफआईआर) में भी घटना का स्पष्ट िववरण िदया गया है, िजसमें दोनों वाहनों की भूिमका स्पष्ट है। के स डायरी के पृष्ठ संख्या 2 में वादी की धारा 161 सीआरपीसी की बयान में भी यही तथ्य दोहराए गए हैं। सीडी संख्या 5 में दो प्रत्यक्षदशीर् गवाहों ने भी घटना की पुिष्ट की है, यद्यिप उनके द्वार घटना की ितिथ में कु छ अंतर बताया गया है, िकतु घटना का िववरण समान है। प्रकरण अिभलेख का परीक्षण करने पर यह ज्ञात होता है िक वादी द्वारा दजर् एफआईआर में स्पष्ट रूप से अिभयुक्त स्कॉिपयो चालक एवं ट्रैक्टर चालक के िवरुद्ध आरोप लगाए गए हैं। वािदनी के धारा 161 सीआरपीसी के अंतगर्त िदए गए कथन तथा अन्य प्रत्यक्षदशीर् गवाहों के बयानों से घटना की पुिष्ट होती है। माननीय सवोर्च्च न्यायालय द्वारा State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 में यह िसद्धांत प्रितपािदत िकया गया िक, चाजर् तय करने अथवा िडस्चाजर् पर िवचार करते समय न्यायालय को के वल यह देखना होता है िक अिभयुक्त के िवरुद्ध अपराध िकए जाने की प्रथम दृष्टया संभावना है या नहीं। इसी तरह, State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj, AIR 1997 SC 2041 में भी वह स्पष्ट िकया गया िक िडस्चाजर् के स्तर पर न्यायालय द्वारा साक्ष्य का मूल्यांकन करने की आवश्यकता नहीं है, बिल्क के वल यह देखना है िक क्या अिभयुक्त के िवरुद्ध पयार्प्त सामग्री उपलब्ध है। प्रकरण में वादी की तहरीर, अिभयोजन गवाहों के बयानों तथा वाहन संख्या के स्पष्ट उल्लेख से प्रथम दृष्टया अिभयुक्तगण द्वारा अपराध िकया जाना प्रतीत होता है। घटना की ितिथ में अंतर होना गवाही की िवश्वसनीयता पर इस स्तर पर िनणार्यक नहीं माना जा सकता। अतः न्यायालय का मत है िक अिभयुक्त िचत्रांशु को िडस्चाजर् िकया जाना उिचत नहीं होगा। आदेश अिभयुक्त िचत्रांशु का धारा 239 दंड प्रिक्रया संिहता के अंतगर्त प्रस्तुत प्राथर्ना पत्र िनरस्त िकया जाता है। पत्रावली वास्ते साक्ष्य अंतगर्त धारा-244 दं०प्र०स० िदनांक 05-11-2025 को पेश हो।"

7. Considered the aforesaid facts of the case and also the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as by the learned AGA of the State of U.P., as per whom while dealing with the matters seeking discharge mini trial is not permissible, and also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments passed in the case(s) of State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39; Union of India vs. Prafull Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC 4; Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460; Tarun Jit Tejpal vs. State of Goa and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1053; Hazrat Deen vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1781; State of Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294 and Vishnu Kumar Shukla vs. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1582 . 5 A482 No. 10025 of 2025

8. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that prima facie the case appears to be there of the aforementioned sections against the applicant and therefore this Court finds that no interference is required in the matter. It is for the following facts(s)/reason(s):- (i) Indisputedly, the applicant is the owner in possession of the vehicle bearing Registration No. UP32FA8000 and this number finds place in the FIR itself, lodged with some delay, which is the subject matter of the trial. (ii) Based upon the plea related to technical examination of the vehicles in issue, the entire criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. (iii) Whether the vehicle involved was the Scorpion or Safari can be dealt with by the trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties in this regard. (iv) The date of the incident indicated in Majeed Bayan of the informant is also the subject matter of the trial based upon the evidence adduced in this regard. (v) Before this Court only typed copies of the statements of witnesses have been brought on record and as such, the veracity of these statements cannot checked.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is dismissed. Cost made easy. December 8, 2025 Arun/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.)