Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10193 of 2021 Applicant :- Dharmpal Singh Rajput Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Gautam,Hanuman Prasad Dube,Vipul Dube Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Sri Hanuman Prasad Dube learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no.618 of 2018 and all consequential proceedings/actions including the order dated 7.10.2019 passed by CJM, Mahoba in complaint case no.618 of 2018 and the order dated 19.2.2021 passed by Sessions Judge, Mahoba in Criminal Revision No.01 of 2020.
All the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. In the process of invoking its inherent jurisdiction, this court cannot be persuaded to have a pre trial before the actual trial begins. The submissions made by the learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case.
The quashing of the charge sheet and the entire proceedings can also be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and also in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 and (v) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 make the position of law in this regard clear.
In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which might justify the quashing of charge sheet or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The court below has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.
As requested by the learned counsel for the applicant, the permission to appear before the concerned lower court within a period of three weeks from today through the reprsenting counsel and move an application claiming discharge is granted to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits in accordance with law within a period which shall not exceed a period of one month from today.
It is clarified that if this order is not availed by the accused within the stipulated period of time no application for extension of time shall be entertained and the court below is at liberty to proceed against the applicant in accordance with law.
With the above observations, this application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 SP