State of U.P. and Another v. Party

Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Kumar Srivastava, Dharnidhar Pandey, G.A. Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Sri Dharnidhar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

2. Sri Indra Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants does not propose to file any reply to the same.

3. The parties have consented that the matter be decided on the basis of the documents available on record, thus, with the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.

4. Heard Sri Indra Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Moti Lal, learned AGA for the State and Sri Dharnidhar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

5. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the cognizance order dated 08.11.2024 including the chargesheet dated 14.10.2024 and the entire proceeding of Case No. 3109 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 170 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 352, 427, 325 IPC, Police Station Lalganj, District Basti pending before the court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti.

6. The case of the applicants is that first information report stood lodge on

07.07.2024 by opposite party no. 2 against the applicants, who are two in numbers, and other accused being FIR no. 0170 of 2024, under Sections 323, 2 A482 No. 722 of 2025 504, 506, 352, 427, 325 IPC with an allegation that on 25.06.2024 at about 7 in the evening when the first informant was returning to his house, then the applicants herein hurled abuses and they were armed with iron rod and spade and they chased opposite party no. 2 and in order to, rescue himself, opposite party no. 2 ran away into his house and as soon as he came to the door of the house, then the applicants started assaulting him and witnessing the same, the daughter-in-law of opposite party no. 2-Sangeeta Tripathi, the grand daughter namely, Nishtha Tripathi D/o Kamleshwar were also assaulted and the chair and table, which were lying on the door were being damaged and after hearing hue and cry, the villagers came there.

7. Post recording of the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the opposite party no. 2, Nishtha Tripathi and Sangeeta Triapthi, the investigation stood concluded by the investigating officer and thereafter a chargesheet came to be submitted in Case No. 3109 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 170 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 352, 427, 325 IPC and the order came to be passed on 08.11.2024, thus, questioning the same, the present application has been preferred.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a bare look of the first information report would reveal that the first information report came to be lodged on 07.07.2024, however, the incident stated to have been occurred on 25.06.2024 and further there is no explanation with regard to the delay in lodging the FIR, which itself shows that the said FIR had been lodged after much deliberations and after consultations and cooked up false story.

9. Further submission is that even the injury reports of Sangeeta Tripathi and Nishtha Tripathi dated 08.07.2024 and thus the submission is that there is no reason so disclosed, which would inspire confidence that the said report is not a planted one, particularly when there is long delay in getting the medical examination done.

10. Further submission is that the statements of the independent witnesses namely, Akshat @ Prateek Tripathi, Vidya W/o Indrajeet and Ganga Ram which shows that no such incident stood occurred and thus the entire prosecution story would eroded.

11. Further submission is that in the year 2019, an FIR being case crime no. 3 A482 No. 722 of 2025 0035 of 2019 was lodge on 04.03.2019 under Sections 336, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC by applicant no. 2 against the family members of opposite party no. 2 faction and further an FIR was also lodged being case crime no. 0240 of 2021 on 04.11.2021 under Sections 323, 504, 352, 452, 427, 506 IPC by applicant no. 2 against opposite party no. 2 faction.

12. Submission is that the present proceeding is nothing but a counter blast and in retaliation, the applicants have been falsely implicated.

13. Sri Moti Lal, learned AGA for the State and Sri Dharnidhar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, while countering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from perusal of the first information report, cognizable offence are made out and further there happens to be an injury report and also the statements of the witnesses as noted above but supported the prosecution case.

14. Further submission is that the wife of the applicant no. 1 is of a ruling party and due to pressure, so exerted by her, it became virtually impossible and the opposite party no. 2 had run from pillar to post to get the first information lodged.

15. He further submits that once the injury report has already there and of course due to non-lodging of the first information report, the injured were medically examined after lapse of time, the same would not be a ground to demolish the prosecution case, as once cognizable offences are made out, then this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS would not enter into factual issues in that regard.

16. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

17. Apparently, the first information report stood lodged by opposite party no. 2 against the applicant being FIR being case crime no. 170 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 352, 427, 325 IPC on 07.07.2024 with relation to the incident dated 25.06.2024 and the injured came to be medically examined on 08.07.2024.

18. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that there has been delay in lodging of the first information report and the injury report and 4 A482 No. 722 of 2025 the delay has not been explained as the first information report has been lodged after much deliberations and the injury reports are also dated

08.07.2024. There is enormous delay. The allegations have been levelled to the effect that there happens to be two first information reports i.e. one in the year 2019 and other is of the year 2021 and the statement of the witness, who show that no such incident has occurred. However, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that since the wife of applicant no. 1 belongs to a ruling party and there has been a delay in lodging the FIR and so much so, in medical examination also and each and every case is to be decided on the basis of its individual facts and hard and fast rule can be assigned and once the injuries are there and there is no cross FIR, then the issue become triable in nature.

19. Looking into overall facts of the situation and bearing in mind the nature of the allegation, which is sought to be leveled the court at this stage is not required to dealt with the factual issues and to record the conclusive and definite.

20. Moreover, the application stands disposed of directing the applicants to submit a discharge application by 17th October, 2025. In case, discharge application is preferred by 17th October, 2025, then the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law with independent application of mind.

21. Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in pursuance of Case No. 3109 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 170 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 352, 427, 325 IPC, Police Station Lalganj, District Basti pending before the court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti. September 26, 2025 #Vik/- (Vikas Budhwar,J.) VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Kumar Srivastava, Dharnidhar Pandey, G.A. Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Sri Dharnidhar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

2. Sri Indra Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants does not propose to file any reply to the same.

3. The parties have consented that the matter be decided on the basis of the documents available on record, thus, with the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.

4. Heard Sri Indra Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Moti Lal, learned AGA for the State and Sri Dharnidhar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

5. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the cognizance order dated 08.11.2024 including the chargesheet dated 14.10.2024 and the entire proceeding of Case No. 3109 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 170 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 352, 427, 325 IPC, Police Station Lalganj, District Basti pending before the court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti.

6. The case of the applicants is that first information report stood lodge on

07.07.2024 by opposite party no. 2 against the applicants, who are two in numbers, and other accused being FIR no. 0170 of 2024, under Sections 323, 2 A482 No. 722 of 2025 504, 506, 352, 427, 325 IPC with an allegation that on 25.06.2024 at about 7 in the evening when the first informant was returning to his house, then the applicants herein hurled abuses and they were armed with iron rod and spade and they chased opposite party no. 2 and in order to, rescue himself, opposite party no. 2 ran away into his house and as soon as he came to the door of the house, then the applicants started assaulting him and witnessing the same, the daughter-in-law of opposite party no. 2-Sangeeta Tripathi, the grand daughter namely, Nishtha Tripathi D/o Kamleshwar were also assaulted and the chair and table, which were lying on the door were being damaged and after hearing hue and cry, the villagers came there.

7. Post recording of the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the opposite party no. 2, Nishtha Tripathi and Sangeeta Triapthi, the investigation stood concluded by the investigating officer and thereafter a chargesheet came to be submitted in Case No. 3109 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 170 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 352, 427, 325 IPC and the order came to be passed on 08.11.2024, thus, questioning the same, the present application has been preferred.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a bare look of the first information report would reveal that the first information report came to be lodged on 07.07.2024, however, the incident stated to have been occurred on 25.06.2024 and further there is no explanation with regard to the delay in lodging the FIR, which itself shows that the said FIR had been lodged after much deliberations and after consultations and cooked up false story.

9. Further submission is that even the injury reports of Sangeeta Tripathi and Nishtha Tripathi dated 08.07.2024 and thus the submission is that there is no reason so disclosed, which would inspire confidence that the said report is not a planted one, particularly when there is long delay in getting the medical examination done.

10. Further submission is that the statements of the independent witnesses namely, Akshat @ Prateek Tripathi, Vidya W/o Indrajeet and Ganga Ram which shows that no such incident stood occurred and thus the entire prosecution story would eroded.

11. Further submission is that in the year 2019, an FIR being case crime no. 3 A482 No. 722 of 2025 0035 of 2019 was lodge on 04.03.2019 under Sections 336, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC by applicant no. 2 against the family members of opposite party no. 2 faction and further an FIR was also lodged being case crime no. 0240 of 2021 on 04.11.2021 under Sections 323, 504, 352, 452, 427, 506 IPC by applicant no. 2 against opposite party no. 2 faction.

12. Submission is that the present proceeding is nothing but a counter blast and in retaliation, the applicants have been falsely implicated.

13. Sri Moti Lal, learned AGA for the State and Sri Dharnidhar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, while countering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from perusal of the first information report, cognizable offence are made out and further there happens to be an injury report and also the statements of the witnesses as noted above but supported the prosecution case.

14. Further submission is that the wife of the applicant no. 1 is of a ruling party and due to pressure, so exerted by her, it became virtually impossible and the opposite party no. 2 had run from pillar to post to get the first information lodged.

15. He further submits that once the injury report has already there and of course due to non-lodging of the first information report, the injured were medically examined after lapse of time, the same would not be a ground to demolish the prosecution case, as once cognizable offences are made out, then this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS would not enter into factual issues in that regard.

16. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

17. Apparently, the first information report stood lodged by opposite party no. 2 against the applicant being FIR being case crime no. 170 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 352, 427, 325 IPC on 07.07.2024 with relation to the incident dated 25.06.2024 and the injured came to be medically examined on 08.07.2024.

18. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that there has been delay in lodging of the first information report and the injury report and 4 A482 No. 722 of 2025 the delay has not been explained as the first information report has been lodged after much deliberations and the injury reports are also dated

08.07.2024. There is enormous delay. The allegations have been levelled to the effect that there happens to be two first information reports i.e. one in the year 2019 and other is of the year 2021 and the statement of the witness, who show that no such incident has occurred. However, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that since the wife of applicant no. 1 belongs to a ruling party and there has been a delay in lodging the FIR and so much so, in medical examination also and each and every case is to be decided on the basis of its individual facts and hard and fast rule can be assigned and once the injuries are there and there is no cross FIR, then the issue become triable in nature.

19. Looking into overall facts of the situation and bearing in mind the nature of the allegation, which is sought to be leveled the court at this stage is not required to dealt with the factual issues and to record the conclusive and definite.

20. Moreover, the application stands disposed of directing the applicants to submit a discharge application by 17th October, 2025. In case, discharge application is preferred by 17th October, 2025, then the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law with independent application of mind.

21. Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in pursuance of Case No. 3109 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 170 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 352, 427, 325 IPC, Police Station Lalganj, District Basti pending before the court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti. September 26, 2025 #Vik/- (Vikas Budhwar,J.) VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad