ARJUN PRASAD AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER
/10333/2025 · 2025-12-09
Brij Raj Singh
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 188391 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 188391 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10333 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as also the learned A.G.A. and perused the record. The applicants have filed this application with the prayer to quash the
order dated-16.07.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M. Gonda in Crl. Case No. 1342/2018, State Versus Arjun Prasad and others, by means of which rejected the discharge application of the petitioners in most arbitrary and illegal manner without touching the merit of the case as well as not giving any finding as raised by the petitioners before the learned trial court and prima facie there is no evidence available on record to proceed the case against the petitioners arising out of Case Crime No. 41/2018, U/s-186, 353, 336 I.P.C. registered at P.S.-Itiyathok District Gonda and petitioner is liable to be discharge in aforesaid criminal case in the interest of justice.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated and further submitted that Plot No. 1018/0.142 Hectares land is in possession of the applicants and it is ancestral property. He has submitted that the false allegation is levelled by Kanoongo in the F.I.R. and without any order permanent construction made on the aforesaid land has been demolished. He has submitted that the discharge application has been decided without considering the aforesaid fact. The learned counsel also submits that grounds taken by the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mulayam Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Arjun Prasad And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)
applicant in the application of discharge, have not been considered by the court below. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that after lodging the F.I.R. investigation has been completed and chargesheet has been filed and thereafter the applicants have been summoned. This court cannot do trial. This court has got very limited scope while hearing the discharge application. The applicants will have ample opportunities to lead evidence before the trial court, but certainly this is not right forum where the evidences can be appreciated. After going through the record, I find that there is allegation of encroachment on the gram sabha land. The evidence has been collected by the Police and chargesheet has been filed, therefore, in the matter trial is required. The application has no force. The application is accordingly dismissed. December 9, 2025 A.Nigam A482 No. 10333 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench