Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10086 of 2021
Applicant :- Daniel Albert
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned cognizance order dated 07.09.2020, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Meerut as well as charge sheet dated 27.08.2019 in Case No. 5893 of 2020 connected Crime No. 0090 of 2019, under Section 379, 427, 504 & 506 of I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, District Meerut, with a further prayer to stay further proceeding in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated. The F.I.R. was lodged after seven days of the incident. Statement of informant was recorded after eight months and eight days of the lodgement of the F.I.R. The statement of wife of informant was recorded even more delayed after five and a half months later. The Investigating Officer has not collected DVR and did not record the statement of informant's son and alleged eye-witnesses of the incident. Opportunity of hearing was not given to the applicant by Investigating Officer. Applicant is a reputed person of the society. False and frivolous case has been slapped upon him. He has not committed any offence. He is a law abiding citizen of the society.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the above submissions and contended that merely delay in lodging the F.I.R. or recording the statement of witnesses is no ground to quash the entire proceeding in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. Further submitted that F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and charge sheet has been submitted by the I.O. Only disputed question of facts has been raised by the applicant in this petition which are subject matter of trial.
Perusal of the record reveals that the F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant by the informant at P.S. Civil Lines, Meerut in Crime No. 90 of 2019, under Sections 379, 427, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. with the allegation that applicant misbehaved with the wife and family of the informant, abused them and threatened to close the door of the house. On 03.03.2019 on alleged date of incident at 02:30 PM, applicant along with his companions came at the door of the informant and broken the camera installed therein. On being intervened the applicant threatened the son of the informant. After investigation, police submitted the charge sheet against the applicant.
Whether statements of witnesses are truthful or otherwise, this enquiry is beyond the purview of proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. So I am of the considered opinion that the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant relate to disputed question of facts which cannot be adjudicated in this proceeding.
In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharastra and others, 2020 SCC Online SC 850, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare case (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule."
Following other authorities can be cited on the aforesaid point:
R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that this Court cannot embark upon the enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint.
Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the law laid down in Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2016 LawSuit (SC) 202 and Balwan Singh v. The State of Chhattisgarh and Anr., (2019) 7 SCC 781.
I have gone through the above authorities relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant. I am of the considered opinion that law laid down in above authorities is not applicable to the facts of the present case as present matter is proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. whereas in the aforecited two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. There were statements of witnesses and other facts before the Hon'ble Apex Court to reach on the conclusion.
In view of the discussions made above, the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
Accordingly, this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2021 VPS