ANIL KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Shri Anil Kumar Tripathi, a practicing Advocate of the High Court, in person, challenging the summoning order dated 02.03.2009 passed by A.C.J.M., C.B.I, Lucknow. By the impugned application, the applicant has prayed that the Court may set aside the charge-sheet dated 27.12.2008 (Annexure No.2) relating to Case Crime No.567 of 2008, under Sections 332, 353, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Wazirganj, District Lucknow.

(2.) Shri Anil Kumar Tripathi, Advocate, arguing in person, challenged the F.I.R. lodged by Raj Kumar Yadav (H.C.No.0558). The applicant alleged that the complainant in his F.I.R. stated that on 28.11.2008 at about 10:00 a.m. an advocate whose name is Anil Kumar Tripathi came in his vehicle at the gate where the complainant was guarding and the applicant tried to pass the vehicle besides the complainant and he escaped unhurt as he saw the incoming vehicle from opposite direction; that the applicant immediately after parking the vehicle came to Gate No.5 of the High Court and he cautioned that this time the complainant escaped unhurt but in future he will be run over by his car; that when the complainant questioned that how he could run over his car, then the applicant-Advocate voluntarily caused hurt by slapping the complainant and threatened that one day he will run over the car on him, then he will not be in a position to check the car.

(3.) The applicant arguing in person alleged that the F.I.R. did not constitute any offence under Sections 332, 353, 504 & 506 I.P.C. because while driving the car he neither run over the complainant nor he made any gesture and he also did not utter any word to insult the Home guard. On the contrary, the Home Guard alleged that after parking the car the applicant-Advocate came and then slapped him and threatened that next time he will pull down the Home Guard so that he will not be in a position to check the car. The applicant argued that the Home Guard has no power to check the car. Since he was only placed to guard the gate but he has no jurisdiction to check the car, all the allegations made against the applicant are uncalled for and allegations did not constitute any offence as alleged. Therefore, the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed and any action taken on the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.