Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12612 of 2017 Applicant :- Dileep Kumar And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Siddharth, Advocate holding brief for Sri Raj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Arun Kumar learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case Crime No.54 of 2016 and Special Case No.37 of 2016 (State Vs.Dileep Kumar and Others) under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (1) SC/ST Act, P.S. Chakar Nagar, District Etawah.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants, who are members of the same family, the applicants no. 1 and 2 being the grandfather of applicant nos. 3 and 4 while the applicant no. 5 is the nephew of applicant no.1 and 2, have been falsely implicated. Admittedly, the opposite party no. 2 received information on 6.8.2016 that his cow and calf had strayed and therefore, they had been detained. He went there to get release of the animals. It is that at juncture that opposite party no.2 alleged that he was attacked by all the applicants for no rhyme or reason. While the said incident is stated to have taken place on 6.8.2016, the FIR was registered on 7.8.2016 while the injury report is stated to have been prepared on 8.8.2016. Even in the FIR, though such allegations have been made, the further allegation with regard to S.C./S.T. Act are wholly vague and incomplete.
4. During the investigation, statement of the mother of opposite party no.2 has been recorded who also claimed to have received certain injuries. Apparently, she stated that she denied having knowledge of the person who caused her injuries. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the applicants submits that wholly vague, general and improbable allegations have been made for collateral purposes. Neither the applicants had detained the animals of the opposite party no. 2, nor they had any connection with that occurrence. Though, all the applicants are said to have assaulted the opposite party no.2 and his relatives for no rhyme or reason, however, there are no independent eye witness of the incident. Even otherwise, with regard to the FIR, it has been submitted that wholly false and frivolous allegation has been made against the applicants.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand, submits that plain reading of the FIR along with injury report and the statements recorded during the investigation though make out the ingredients of the offence alleged, all other aspects would remain matters to be considered during the trial where the applicants will have full opportunity to defend themselves.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears that though it may not be denied that the allegations read in isolation of the other admitted facts and circumstances may constitute ingredients of the offence, however, it cannot be lost sight of that according to the case of the opposite party no.2 himself, his animals had strayed and had been detained not by the applicants no. 1 to 5 but at the government facility and the same were released on payment of fine etc by the opposite party no.2. It is in such circumstances that wholly improbable allegations have been made that all the applicants who are members of the same family and who had no animosity with opposite party no.2, suddenly attacked the opposite party no.2 and his family members. In this regard, the applicants no. 1 and 2 are about 70 years of age who are the grandfather of applicants no. 3 and 4 and the uncle of applicant no.5, are alleged to have assaulted the opposite party no. 2 without any provocation or reason. The improbability and irrationality in the allegation gets credence from the fact that the FIR was lodged on the next date. The injury report is stated to have been prepared two days after the incident. In view of the facts noted above, it appears that wholly improbable case has been set up by the prosecution. With respect to the allegation made under Section 3 (1) SC/ST Act, the ingredients are not made out. It thus appears in totality, the prosecution has been lodged for collateral purposes and not out of any real incident that may have taken place.
7. The proceedings of Case Crime No.54 of 2016 and Special Case No.37 of 2016 (State Vs.Dileep Kumar and Others) under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (1) SC/ST Act, P.S. Chakar Nagar, District Etawah, is hereby quashed.
8. The application is allowed.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Meenu