1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Tuntun Yadav vs State Of Up And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 April, 2019


Court No. - 38
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16477 of 2019 Applicant :- Tuntun Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shams Uz Zaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today which is taken on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the Case NO. 514 of 2019 (State vs. Tuntun Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No. 289 of 2018, under Sections 354, 506 IPC, Police Station Nautanwa, District Maharajganj pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj as well as charge-sheet dated 16.1.2019.
Heard Sri Lalu Yadav holding brief of Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. According to the statement of victim, she had not lodged the First Information Report. There is contradiction between the statement of victim and F.I.R. lodged by her. The Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet without any evidence. The total criminal proceeding is against the provision of law and is illegal, hence, is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant submitting that at this stage, only prima-facie cognizable case is to be seen, merit and demerit of the case cannot be adjudicated at this stage, as such, application is liable to be dismissed.
In State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav (2016) 1 SCC (Crl.) 510, it has been held by the Apex Court that 'the power of judicial superintendence under Article 227 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly when there is patent error or gross injustice in the view taken by a subordinate court'.
From perusal of material on record, it transpires that an F.I.R. was lodged against the accused-applicant with the allegation that the accused-applicant used to tease and threat the victim and on 13.11.2018 at about 6:30 pm, when she was going for natural call, accused-applicant molested her and upon alarm raised by her, he fled away.
I am of the opinion that all the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants relates to the disputed question of fact which can be raised before the court below at appropriate stage. From perusal of record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant at this stage.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears or surrenders before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and applies for bail in the aforesaid case, his prayer for bail shall be considered as expeditiously as possible by the court below in accordance with law.
With aforesaid direction /observation, the instant application finally stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Saurabh
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Tuntun Yadav vs State Of Up And Another


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

29 April, 2019
  • Virendra Kumar Srivastava
  • Shams Uz Zaman