SUDAMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pritam Yadav for the Respondent No. 4, and the learned Government Advocate.

(2.) ON a plain reading of the FIR it cannot be said that no cognizable case is disclosed. No ground, therefore, exists for quashing the FIR. However it has been argued that that the informant is not said to have received any injury, and thus there was no corroboration of the allegations which on their face appeared to be exaggerated. The application to the S.P. was lodged belatedly on 25 -4 -2006 when the incident in question is said to have taken place on 4 -3 -2006, 12 -3 -2006 and 13 -3 -2006 and earlier to 4 -3 -2006 and there is no explanation whatsoever for this delay. Moreover, the entire family consisting of father -in -law, mother -in -law, jeth, jethani and nanad have been falsely implicated in an omnibus manner and it would be an abuse of the process of law if the entire family were sent to jail on such vague uncorroborated allegations.

(3.) THE following lines from Apex Court decision in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., 1994 JIC 760(SC) : (1994 [31] ACC 431), may be read with advantage: