Allahabad High Court
Satyendra Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 January, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5536 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33437 of 2024 Applicant :- Satyendra Gupta And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicants-Satyendra Gupta and Reena Gupta who are charge sheeted accused have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and quash the S.T. No.429 of 2015 under Section 376(2) (F), 323, 506 I.P.C. (State Vs. Satyendra Gupta and another) including the charge sheet dated 7.8.2014 and cognizance order dated 19.09.2014 in Case Crime No.182 of 2014, Police Station Kotwali Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur."
4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that the charge sheet/police report dated 7.8.2014 was submitted by the Investigating Officer in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. against accused applicants. Upon submission of aforementioned charge-sheet/police report cognizance was taken upon same by the jurisdictional magistrate. However, as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore the jurisdictional magistrate in compliance of Section 211 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of Sessions. Theraftre the concerned Sessions Judge framed charges against accused. As such the trial procedure commenced. In the charge sheet so submitted against the applicants nine prosecution witnesses have been nominated, however, upto this stage 7 prosecution witnesses have deposed before court below.
5. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that no effective relief can be granted to applicants in this application. As such the present application has now been rendered infructuous and is therefore, liable to be dismissed as having rendered infructuous.
6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is not only clearly borne out from the record but further more the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants.
8. As such no good ground exist to entertain the present application. In view of above this application fails and is liable to be dismissed as having rendered infructuous.
9. It is accordingly dismissed as having rendered infructuous.
Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Md Faisal