Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13855 of 2021 Applicant :- Arjun Deo Patrakar @ Arjun Deo Varsheny And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed challenging charge sheet dated 10.9.2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 190 of 2020 under Sections 354B, 356, 506 IPC, Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh, Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning order dated 4.12.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh in criminal case no. 14234 of 2020 (State vs. Arjun Deo Patrakar @ Arjun Dev Varsheny & others) arising out of above mentioned case crime number as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case, now pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh.
4. Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. It is then contended that the dispute between the parties is basically a professional dispute which has been dragged into criminal litigation. Allegations made in the FIR are false and concocted. No incident, as alleged in the FIR, ever occurred. Applicants have been falsely implicated for an ulterior motive. There is no material to support the prosecution of applicants. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that present criminal proceedings are not only malicious but also an abuse of process of court. Consequently, same are liable to be quashed by this Court.
5. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned AGA contends that after registration of above mentioned FIR, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of above mentioned case crime number under Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer recorded statements of first informant Smt. Shashi Gupta, who is the victim/prosecutrix, and also other witnesses who have supported the prosecution story as unfolded in FIR. It is then contended that the prosecutrix in her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution story as unfolded in FIR. On the basis of material collected by investigating officer during course of investigation, which is essentially adverse against applicants charge-sheet dated 10.9.2020 has been submitted against applicants whereby and whereunder applicants have been charge-sheeted under Section 354B, 356, 506 I.P.C. In the charge-sheet so submitted, as many as eleven prosecution witnesses have been nominated. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that at this stage it cannot be said that prosecution of applicants is false or there is no material to support prosecution of applicants. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Apex Court in Nupur Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another, (2012) 11 SCC 465 and on the basis thereof, it is contended that at this stage only prima- facie material for taking cognizance and summoning the charge- sheeted accused is to be seen and not that material is sufficient for conviction of accused. It is next contended that the ground urged that there are certain contradictions in statement of prosecutrix in her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and therefore, they are not credible and reliable, can be examined by court below itself as it falls in the realm of trial. Learned AGA submits that charge-sheet is the outcome of investigation and since no deficiency, irregularity or illegality has been pointed out in investigation of above mentioned case crime number, consequently, charge-sheet cannot be challenged. Learned AGA lastly submits that no case for interference is made out and present application is liable to be dismissed.
6. When confronted with aforesaid, learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.
7. Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for State and upon perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants. All the submissions made at Bar relate to the disputed defence of applicants, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court cannot appriase and appreciate evidence to record a finding one way or other. Aforesaid exercise can be undertaken by trial court itself upon trial of aforesaid criminal case. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283.
8. In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
9. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 nd