Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12024 of 2021 Applicant :- Dilip Sonkar And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Maurya,Deepak Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the Charge sheet No. 119 of 2020, dated 27.03.2020, cognizance order dated 11.02.2021 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 657 of 2021 (State vs. Dilip and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 79 of 2020, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaunpur.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that without looking the matter on record and without investigation, the investigating officer has filed charge sheet against the applicants.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the aforesaid submission.
In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2020 SCC Online SC 85, 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 cases (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.
All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
Learned counsel for the applicants requested that order may be passed for expeditious disposal of bail application in view of Brahm Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others 2016
(95) ACC950.
In view of the above, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the law laid down in Brahm Singh and others (Supra).
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 v.k.updh.