Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24800 of 2019
Applicant :- G. L. Yadav And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of entire proceedings of Case No.4045 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No.181 of 2012, u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-G.R.P. Lalitpur, District-Lalitpur, pending in the Court of C.J.M., Lalitpur.
List has been revised. Learned counsel for applicants is present along with learned A.G.A. but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 despite repeated calls. In the wake of heavy pendency of cases in this Court where dockets are already bursting on their seams there is no justifiable reason to further procrastinate the matter. This Court, therefore, deems it fit to proceed in the matter on the basis of the record and with the assistance of the learned A.G.A. representing the State.
Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. and also perused the entire record of the case.
Submission of counsel for applicants is that the present F.I.R. has been maliciously lodged as a matter of counterblast as a complaint case was already registered against opposite site and therefore in order to create pressure upon the applicants, the present false case has been lodged. It has also been pointed out that the F.I.R. was registered u/s 147, 392, 307, 342, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. but the charge sheet was submitted u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. alone. Certain other submissions have also been raised on behalf of applicants but all of them 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 the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions made on behalf of applicants and has submitted that the extenuation of the charge and submission of charge sheet under lesser sections appears to be the result of a favourable investigation.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
According to the version given in the F.I.R. the first informant was a correspondent of Dainik Jagran, Lalitpur. A cable which was stolen is said to have been recovered and in that connection when the information was received, the photographer correspondent Shailendra Gautam was sent to Police Station-
R.P.F. Railway Station on 14.10.2012. Certain photographs were also taken by him. When certain questions regarding the stolen cable were asked, S.S.I. G.L. Yadav got enraged and started misbehaving. A highhanded behaviour with aforesaid Shailendra was meted out and he was thrown out of the police station. When this news travelled, the first informant along with one Ravi Shankar Singh reached RPF police station and on which S.S.I. G.L Yadav also misbehaved with the first informant and exhorted that they should be beaten till they died and let their dead bodies be thrown on railway track. On this exhorting command, Constable Umesh Yadav and Santosh Kumar Bhagat who were in civil dress and other 7-8 police personnel started beating Ravi Shankar who had accompanied the first informant. They also tried to strangulate upon them to death. Thereafter, all three persons were dumped to the lockup. Even inside the lockup, they were beaten up by men of Force and attempt to strangulate them was also made. The other correspondents who had reached the spot, raised hue and cry. It is also said that the accused Umesh Yadav and Santosh Kumar Bhagat also snatched the golden chain and the mobile. Injuries were caused to the first informant, Ravi Shankar and Shailesh as a result of this assault. Somehow escaping from RPF Police, they approached the police station and the F.I.R. was got registered. The F.I.R. was registered u/s 147, 392, 307, 342, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. but after the investigation the charge sheet was submitted u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. alone. It is not difficult to see that when the policemen themselves are accused, a liberal attitude by Investigating Officer is often likely to be adopted. Be that as it may, at this stage this Court does not want to express any opinion as the matter relates to trial.
The submissions made by the applicants' 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. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.
Interim order, if any, is vacated.
Application lacks merit and therefore stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019
M. Kumar