LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-168

BADRI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U. P.

Decided On December 14, 2021
BADRI PRASAD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U. P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing alongwith Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State-opposite party.

(2.) The present application under Sec. 482 CrPC has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dtd. 20/11/2020 in Case Crime No. 402/2020 under Ss. 324, 323 and 504 Indian Penal Code Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly with a further prayer to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

(3.) The principal ground which is sought to be urged for seeking quashing of the proceedings is that the order dtd. 19/2/2021 passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance is without application of mind and has been passed mechanically without assigning any detailed reasons. It has been further argued that as per the FIR version, the weapon used in commission of offence could not be described to be a "dangerous weapon" so as to constitute an offence under Sec. 324 IPC and this aspect of the matter having not been examined by the Magistrate while taking cognizance of the charge-sheet, the order taking cognizance cannot be sustained. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has referred to the decisions in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate,(1998) 5 SCC 749. Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. State of Utaranchal,(2008) 17 SCC 157. Ankit Vs. State of U.P. and another,(2009) 67 ACC 532. and Vineet Agarwal and others Vs. State of U.P. and another,(Application u/s 482 No. 15450 of 2020, decided on 11/11/2020).