JUDGMENT M.K. Mittal, J.
1. Heard Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the accused applicants, Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 530 of 2005 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 326 and 427 IPC, P.S. Sureer, District Mathura pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. 1st Mathura. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused applicants is that opposite party No. 2 filed a false F.I.R. against the applicants which was registered at Crime No. 9 of 2005 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. According to him there was no mention of any injury in the mouth or loss of tooth of the informant. After investigation the charge sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC but without there being any basis the further investigation was made and Section 326 and 427 were added in the charge sheet.
3. Learned counsel for the accused applicants has contended that F.I.R. was lodged by the applicant himself and if his tooth was lost at the time of alleged incident he must have mentioned this fact in the report itself. The absence of this fact in the report shows that the fact regarding injury to the tooth has been manipulated later on. He has further contended that learned Magistrate has summoned the accused without applying his judicial mind and that there is no evidence against the applicants and no case is made out against them. Learned counsel for the accused applicants has also contended that the allegations as made are absolutely absurd and inherently improbable and that the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. He also argued that in any case the offence cannot travel beyond the scope of Section 325 IPC.
4. The contention of the. learned counsel for the opposite party is that accused persons had attacked the complainant with the butt of the country made pistol and caused him injuries. The injury report dated 3.3.2005 shows that Praveen Pathak, the informant was examined at 10.20 p.m. and the injury No. 5 shows that first molar six tooth of left lower jaw was missing and fresh bleeding from empty socket was present. Concerned part of jaw near empty socket was lacerated. There were other injuries also.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the statements of the medical officers as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. show that injured received injury in his left ear also resulting in deficiency in hearing. He has further contended that first investigating officer had hurriedly submitted the charge sheet and the injured had given, a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. about the loss of his tooth and that other witnesses have also stated about the injuries caused to informant including the injury of the tooth. He has further contended that S.I.S. was directed to make further investigation and thereafter Sections 427 and 326 IPC were added as there was prima facie sufficient evidence under those sections.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that at this stage, the evidence cannot be analyzed and only a prima facie case is to be seen and there is sufficient evidence against the applicants to show that they have committed the offence under Section 326 IPC also as they hit the complainant with the butt of the country made pistol.
7. Broadly repeating the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings (i) where the allegations made in the complaint or the F.I.R. do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence; (ii) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance; (iii) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and do not make out a case against the accused and; (iv) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable and vexatious that on the basis of which no prudent person can even reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. [R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1960 SC 866; State of Haiyana v. Bhajanlal 1992 SCC (Crl) 426; M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and Ors. 2001 (8) SCC 645]
8. Now it is settled law that inherent jurisdiction though wide has to be exercised sparingly carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in Section 482 Cr.P.C., Power is to be exorcised ex-debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court but should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. When an information is lodged at Police Station and an offence is registered then the malafides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. Allegations of malafide against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding. At this stage, an inquiry is not to be made whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial judge. [Jhandu Pharmaceauticals works Limited and Ors. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Anr. 2005 (1) SCC 122; State of Andhra v. Golkunda Lingaswami and Ors. 2004 (6) SCC 522; State of M.P. v. Awadh Klshore Gupta and Ors. 2004(1) SCC 691]
9. In view of this legal position, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused applicants that opposite party No. 2 had filed the report out of malafide is not tenable. There is sufficient evidence to show a prima facie case against the applicants and the objections as raised by the applicants are factual in nature and they can take the same in the Trial Court at appropriate Stage. I do not find any illegality in the Charge sheet or the summoning order and the application under Section 482 Cr.PC. is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Application is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 26.7.2005 stands vacated.