Allahabad High Court
Suresh Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 31 July, 2023
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:50350 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7343 of 2023 Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anita Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST, Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in Misc. Criminal Case No.562 of 2022, Police Station Nighasan, District Kheri.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 27.08.2021 on the basis of some false complaint, police personnel came to the deceased (Kailash) and started beating, then only with intention to save himself, deceased started running, and thereafter, he fell down and died. He further submitted that deceased was beaten brutally by the police personnel as a complaint was made to the Senior Officer for lodging of the FIR against the erring officer, but the same was not registered. He further submitted that application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant, in which, report was sought from the concerned Police Station, and thereafter, application was rejected with the observation that earlier application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant, which was dismissed as not pressed, therefore indulgence of this Court is necessary.
4. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of applicant and submitted that one application under Section 156 (3) was moved by the applicant, in which, report was sought from the concerned Police Station and in the said report, it was mentioned that the inquest as well as postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted and applicant of the present case is one of the witness of the inquest as no injury was found on the body of the deceased and Doctor, who conducted the postmortem opined that cause of death is cardiac arrest. He further submitted that court below also observed that no injury was found on the body of the deceased, therefore, there is a contradiction in the contents of the complaint and there is no illegality in the order passed the court below. Hence, application is liable to be rejected.
5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of application, impugned order, inquest report, postmortem report as well as contents of police report, as it is evident that on the information of the applicant that deceased (Kailash) died due to cardiac arrest, police personnel reached on the spot and inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted and five witnesses including applicant were the witnesses of the inquest and they categorically opined that cause of death is cardiac arrest, but he also requested for knowing the reason of death, the autopsy of the body of the deceased is necessary, and thereafter, postmortem was conducted and no antemortem injury was found and doctor, who conducted the postmortem opined that cause of death was cardiac arrest. It is also evident that one application under Section 156 (3) was also moved by the applicant, which was dismissed as not pressed and later on another complaint was filed, in which, report was sought from the concerned police station as court below observed that no injury was found on the body of the deceased and cause of death was the cardiac arrest. Hence, there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below.
6. In view of the above, application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 31.7.2023 Amit/-