Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25416 of 2017 Applicant :- Bharat Lal Rahi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Saleheen Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shamsher Bahadur Maurya
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Saleheen Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shamsher Bahadur Maurya, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. on behalf of State.
2. Present 482 application has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 04.5.2013 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case Crime No.704 of 2012, under Sections 384, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Mau.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations made in the FIR were plainly false and, in any case, they do not make out the ingredients of the offence alleged. From a plain reading of the FIR along with statements that have been recorded in the Case Diary, in this regard, it has been submitted that in absence of any allegation of delivery of any property by the informant to the present applicant, the offence alleged under Section 384 IPC was never complete. As to the other offence alleged under Sections 452,504 and 506 IPC, it has been submitted that the independent witnesses, whose statements were recorded by the police during the investigation, namely, Paras Nath Mitwa and Km. Indumati Sonker, specifically disapproved the FIR allegation as to the involvement of the present applicant in any occurrence or criminal offence. Thus, it has been submitted that the charge sheet submitted and the cognizance taken, have no legs to stand.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the present application. He submits that statement of the informant and his wife were categorical as to the involvement of the commission of the offence. In any case, there is a criminal history of the applicant which has been specified in the Para-6 of the counter affidavit.
5. Responding to the last objection raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned counsel for the applicant has clarified that in so far as the first case mentioned in Para-6 was concerned, that was with respect to some public protest that had occurred wherein, the applicant had been roped in on account of his political activities and not on account of real occurrence. In so far as the second case is concerned, the same had also been got registered by the opposite party no. 2 who is a person who bears political animus towards the applicant. Proceedings in that case had already been dropped while the applicant had been enlarged on bail in the first case.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, the ingredients of the offence alleged under Section 384 IPC are clearly not made out in absence of any allegation and material as to the delivery of property. As to the other allegation, in view of the statement of two independent witnesses recorded in the Case Diary which fact is undisputed, it would not be in the interest of justice to allow such a prosecution to proceed any further. Therefore, there are neither any independent witnesses nor any injury report or other credible material to prosecute the present applicant.
7. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings of Case Crime No.704 of 2012, under Sections 384, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Mau against the applicant, are quashed. The present application is allowed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Meenu