Allahabad HC refuses to quash criminal proceedings registered over an alleged image of Deputy CM of Uttar Pradesh Keshav Prasad Maurya
The Allahabad High Court in the case of Arun Kumar Jaiswal v/s State of U.P. and Anr. refused to quash criminal proceedings registered over an alleged Facebook Post ‘Tarnishing’ image of Deputy Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Keshav Prasad Maurya.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheet, cognizance as well as entire proceedings of Case State vs. Arun Kumar Jaiswal, under Section 501 IPC and Section 66 Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Advocate Brijesh Ojha, appearing on behalf of the applicant, contended that the applicant has not committed the alleged offences. Applicant has been falsely implicated. Offences under sections 501 IPC and Section 66 Information of Technology (Amended) Act, 2008, are not made out against the applicant. The court of Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance without applying judicial mind.
The Single Judge bench of Justice Anil Kumar Ojha noted that the record of the case reveals that the Investigating Officer collected the evidence and concluded the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant under Section 501 I.P.C. and Section 66 I.T. Act. Perusal of the record further discloses that the concerned Magistrate has taken cognizance in the matter.
The court said that in proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court cannot adjudicate upon the reliability of witnesses. Whether by alleged Facebook Post, image of Mr. Kashav Prasad Maurya, Deputy Chief Minister, Mr. Nand Gopal “Nandi”, Minister, Mr. Vinod Sonkar, Member of Parliament, Kaushambi, Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Member of Legislative Assembly, Chayal, Mr. Lal Bahadur Yadav, Member of Legislative Assembly, Manjhanpur and Mr. Seetla Prasad, Member of Legislative Assembly, Sirathu, has been tarnished or not, is a question of fact which has to be decided by the trial court during trial.
The court while refusing to quash the proceedings held that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the appropriate court and applies for bail, his prayer for bail be considered and decided in view of the law laid down in Brahm Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others 2016 (95) ACC950.
