Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32658 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3596 of 2025 Applicant :- Sanju Pal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjeet Asthana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ranjeet Asthana, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sudhir Kumar Chandraul, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The applicants herein have filed the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding against the applicants arising out of Case No. 48298 of 2024, State Vs. Sanju Pal and others, relating to case crime no. 204 of 2024, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 427 and 452 IPC, P.S. Ramgarh Tal, District Gorakhpur pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Gorakhpur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that a first information report stood lodged against the applicants being FIR No. 024 on 02.04.2024 under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 427, 392 and 452 IPC relatable to the commission of the offences on 22.03.2024 with an allegation that on 22.03.2024 at 8.00 in the night, the opposite party no. 2 had gone to the house of his sister at Tara Mandal, Gorakhpur and from there, he along with his relative and the son of the Aunty had gone to a place, wherein they found that the sister-in-law and the step mother were fighting together. Further allegation is that not only beating was being administered but the abuses were also sought to be hurled, pursuant whereto Manju Devi, injured sustained injuries on the hand and so far as the sister of the opposite party no. 2 being Kajal Nishad is concerned, her necklace was snatched. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though injuries have been sought to be sustained by Vijay Nishad and Manju but the nature of injuries are not such which would attribute criminality. He further submits that even with respect to the same incident at the same time, there happens to be a first informant report by the first informant faction on 23.03.2024, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 352, 354 of IPC and the basic motive behind the lodging of the first information report by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants is to somewhat obtain compassionate appointment, consequent to the death of Jitendra Pal. 4. Submission is that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this regard. Learned counsel for the applicants has also invited attention towards the averments made in para 7 of the application. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand has argued that once there happens to be two FIRs, one which might be termed to be prompt by the applicants or by delay by the opposite party no. 2 but what is relevant is the fact that there happens to be the existence of the incident. According to him, injuries have been sustained and there has been a fracture on the right hand of the Manju. According to him, defences are not to be seen at this stage, particularly, when the trial has not yet commenced. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 7. What is understandable, at this present stage in the present proceedings is the fact as to what extent interference is to be accorded. Apparently, there happens to be being two FIRs, one FIR lodged on 23.03.2024 relatable to the commission of the offences on 22.03.2024 by the applicants faction and the other FIR is dated 02.04.2024 relatable to the offences on 22.03.2024 depicting that an incident stood triggered on 22.03.2024. So far as the opposite party no. 2 is concerned, he was also put to medical examination on 01.04.2024 through the Home-guard. It is thus apparent that it is not a case wherein the injured on his own went for getting medical examination. From the narration of the allegations contained in the first information report and the statements so made therein and the medical reports show that Manju has also sustained injuries, so thus, it cannot be ruled out that offences are not made out. So far as the arguments so sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicants that the bone of contention between the parties which was a motivating factor for lodging criminal proceedings is obtaining a job post death of Jitendra Pal is a matter of defence which cannot be gone into the present proceedings as that stage is not come. 8. Thus, interference is declined and the application is consigned to record. 9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants shall be preferring a discharge application. 10. In the opinion of the Court, if a discharge application is maintainable under law, is preferred then this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be decided with most expedition. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 A. Prajapati Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad