Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3443 of 2021
Applicant :- Chandan Arora
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Prabha Shanker Mishra,Paritosh Sukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dileep Kumar Pandey,Sunil Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for private-respondent and Sri Vinod Kant, learned AAG for the State.
2. Sri Vinod Kant, learned AAG for the State submits that mediation has failed.
3. Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant submits that his party is still willing to reconcile differences. However, Sri Raj Sonkar- complainant is adamant that he will not be in a position to compromise the matter and he needs justice to be done.
4. Efforts to settle the matter through mediation has failed. Therefore, case is considered on merits.
5. This Application U/S 482 has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of the case originating from chargesheet no. 463 of 2020 as well as cognizance order and thereafter, issuance of non-bailable warrant dated 15.01.2021 in Case No. 26 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 584 of 2020 (State vs. Chandan Arora) under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Prayagraj, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj, on the ground that complainant- Raj Sonkar was accompanied by his senior Virendra Kumar Tiwari, who admittedly has turned hostile and has furnished an affidavit, Annexure-6 to the application, where in, he has mentioned that two unknown persons had a scuffle with Raj Sonkar. These unknown persons had also visited the food joint for collecting food and in this scuffle, hotel owner-Chandan Arora had in fact, tried to intervene and settle dispute between the parties and in fact, Chandan Arora has no connection with the matter.
6. Placing reliance on this affidavit, it is submitted that star witness of the prosecution has turned hostile and has given an affidavit in favour of the accused-Chandan Arora. Similarly, statements of other persons, as were recorded by the police, are read over to point out that all the witnesses are hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that in fact, as per the medico-legal report, no bony injury was seen and injuries sustained by the victim-Raj Sonkar are simple in nature.
7. Sri Vinod Kant, in his turn, submits that it is a matter of evidence and statements given to police authorities are always subjected to cross-examination. As far as affidavit of Advocate- Virendra Tiwari is concerned, that has no meaning and the court concerned is not required to look into said affidavit, as that may be used as a defence evidence, but not at the stage of taking cognizance.
8. Sri Vinod Kant further submits that since non-bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant-Chandan Arora, therefore, right course for him is to appear before the court of law and seek cancellation of non-bailable warrants by furnishing adequate bail bonds.
9. After hearing learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for private respondent as well as learned AAG for the State, it is though true that Virendra Tiwari, star prosecution witness, has turned hostile. Other witnesses, which have been cited by the police, are all employees of the applicant-Chandan Arora. It is also true that their evidence is to be tested before the court of law and is not required to be appreciated at the stage of cognizance by the court concerned.
10. It is also true that non-bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant that means that he is not participating in the court proceedings and is not cooperating with the court below.
11. In view of such fact situation, when statements made by Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra, are tested on the anvil of the law laid down by Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supl. (1) SCC 335 as well as in International Advanced Research Centre For Powder Matallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) and others Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technic Private Limited and another, (2016) 1 SCC 348, no ground for quashing is made out. Therefore, petition fails and is dismissed.
12. This Court expresses its sincerest thanks and gratitude to Sri Vinod Kant, learned AAG for the State for sparing his valuable time for carrying out mediation between the parties.
Order Date :- 17.9.2021 Vikram/-R