Allahabad High Court
Km. Suman vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 January, 2021
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11887 of 2008 Applicant :- Km. Suman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahipal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Counsel for the applicant argues that the charge-sheet in question as against the applicant is liable to be quashed. In support of his argument, he states that the case was registered as case no.7875 of 2006, State Vs. Suman, in which the charge-sheet was filed on 29.11.2005 implicating the accused under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act. The applicant was a minor at the time of incident which fact is verified on the basis of the supplementary affidavit on record.
Counsel for the applicant argues that the trial of the other co-accused commenced and vide judgment dated 16.12.2006 the case was finally decided after recording all the evidences from whereof the Court comes to the conclusion that no sufficient ground exist for prosecuting the accused in the said offences.
Counsel for the applicant argues that from perusal of the statement of the witnesses as is borne out from the judgment on record that no one has supported the State version and once the case against the other accused has been decided on merits, no useful purpose would be served in permitting the prosecution of the applicant which has to be go through the same evidence as there was no other evidence on record specifically and distinct against the applicant.
Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon various judgments of this Court in Manoj Vs. State of U.P. & another reported in [2004(49) ACC 302], Sanju @ Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in [2005(53) ACC 429] and Darshan Singh and others Vs. State of U.P., reported in [2006(54) ACC 165] in support of his submissions.
Learned AGA on the other hand argues that the applicant is not entitled to any benefit from this Court and should face the trial as has been faced by all the other accused.
In view of the statement made at the bar and considering the judgment in S.T. No. 654 of 2006 against the other co-accused and on perusal of the evidence, which has been discussed in the said judgment, I am of the firm view that no useful purpose would be served in relegating the applicant to face the trial for which no evidence exist. From the perusal of the charge-sheet also there is nothing on record to demonstrate that apart from the evidence which was referred to in the Sessions Trial judgments in case no. 645 of 2006 any specific or distinct evidence was sought to be adduced against the applicant.
In view of the said matter and following the judgments as referred above, the proceedings vide charge-sheet dated 29.11.2005 against the applicant are quashed.
The application is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021 pks