DEEPTI PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Anuj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Rishad Murtaza, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing charge-sheet filed in Case Crime No.617 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 504, 506, 323, 354 (kha) I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO, Act, Police Station Poora Kalander, District Faizabad as well as summoning order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Faizabad.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned proceeding was initiated by the opposite party No.2 only due to some property dispute, as number of cases are pending in the courts against each other. The applicant has lodged FIR against the opposite party No.2 and others, which was registered as Case Crime No.618 of 2017, under Sections 147,148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354 (B) I.P.C., Police Station Poora Kalander, District Faizabad on 29.10.2017 in which the investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and the charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 325 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that on the written complaint of opposite party No.2, cross FIR was registered on the exaggerated facts with the allegation that opposite party No.2 and other family members were assaulted by the applicant and others and in the incident fire arm was used and the applicant received fire arm injures but no such fire arm was recovered, as a result, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,504, 506, 452 I.P.C against applicant and under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452 (kha) I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO, Act, against rest of the accused persons. As no incriminating evidence was found to establish the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. as a result, Section 307 I.P.C. was deleted in the charge-sheet. He further submitted that there was a cross version and the opposite party No.2 and his associates were the aggressor and the applicant side received injuries. Therefore, impugned proceedings is liable to the quashed.