Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3879 of 2021 Applicant :- Brij Lal Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge-sheet dated 27.05.2020 submitted in Case Crime No.813 of 2017, under Sections- 420, 409 I.P.C., Police Station- Siddharth Nagar, District- Siddharth Nagar, as well as entire proceedings of consequential Criminal Case No.1429 of 2020, (State Vs. Dharmendra and others), under Sections- 420, 409 I.P.C., Police Station- Siddharth Nagar, District- Siddharth Nagar, arising out of above-mentioned case crime number, now pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in above-mentioned case crime number. Applicant is not named in F.I.R. Statement of witnesses, which were recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not support the prosecution story against applicant. As such entire proceedings of above- mentioned criminal case are liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. has invited attention of Court to the statements of Vijay Kumar Sahani and Nagendra Pratap Yadav, which were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by Investigating Officer. Learned A.G.A. further contends that aforesaid witnesses have clearly implicated present applicant by stating that applicant was responsible for getting some persons appointed as agent of company. On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A. contends that complicity of present applicant in crime in question is established. It is lastly contended that police upon investigation of above-mentioned case crime number has submitted a charge- sheet dated 27.05.2020, wherein 20 prosecution witnesses have been nominated. On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A. contends that at this stage, it cannot be said that prosecution case is false or there is no material to support the prosecution of applicant.
Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. 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 the 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.PC. This Court cannot appraise or appreciate evidence to record a finding one way or the other. At this stage only prime 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 and 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.
In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Saif