Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29452 of 2019
Applicant :- Bahira And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Maiku Lal Maurya,Varun Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet dated 14.06.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.816 of 2016 (State vs. Bahira Pasi and another) arising out of Case Crime No.129 of 2016, u/s 323, 325, ,504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Paschim Sharira, District- Kaushambi, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned AGA. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the F.I.R. was lodged with delay and the specific explanation in that regard is lacking and therefore, the impugned charge sheet based upon the same deserves its quashing. Certain discrepancy in the medical examination and the oral testimony have also been pointed out by the applicant's counsel and it has been submitted that there is no good corroboration from the independent source regarding prosecution version. It was submitted that there was some property dispute in the background and in that regard a suit is also pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Kaushambi being O.S. No. 595 of 2009 (annexure no. 6). Certain other contentions have also been raised by the applicants' counsel but all of them relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
As per the version given in the F.I.R. the son of the first informant is a regional representative in a daily newspaper. One Bahira and Hanuman were trying to encroach upon the land of a pond and in that regard news was got published in the newspaper by the son of the first informant which enraged the people interested in the encroachment. Threatenings were also given. One day the aforesaid Bahira and Hanuman and Guddu and other family members along with dozens of associates made a concerted attack upon the house of the first informant and made a criminal assault upon the fist informant and other family members. They damaged the property and destroyed the household articles. On the intervention of neighbourhood people somehow the intruders could be brought out of the house. They also resorted to stone pelting which caused injuries to a number of people. The version of the F.I.R. was also supported by the first informant in his statement given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and other witnesses which include the statement Smt. Rati Singh, copy of which has been annexed as annexure no. 4. The aspect of delay in lodging the F.I.R. and appropriateness of its explanation can better be appreciated during the course of trial after giving full opportunity to the first informant in that regard.
The submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.
The application therefore stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 shiv/ Naresh