Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28603 of 2019
Applicant :- Guddu Pandey And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Verma 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 charge sheet dated 14.02.2019, cognizance order dated 08.04.2019 as well as the entire proceedings in Case No.511 of 2019 (State vs. Guddu Pandey and another) arising out of Case Crime No.279 of 2018, u/s 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C., P.S.-Hafizganj, District-Bareilly, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Bareilly.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned A.G.A. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of counsel for applicants is that there is delay in lodging of the F.I.R. which has not been adequately explained by the prosecution and shall consequently cause doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. It was further submitted that in fact the father of the applicant was the Sarvarakar of the property and the first informant has tried to take over the same unlawfully. It has been also submitted that the prosecution witnesses are not independent in nature and the allegations made against the applicants are false. Certain other contentions have also been raised by the applicants' counsel 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.
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 of the F.I.R., the first informant was the rightful Sarvarakar regarding Shri Ram Mandir Thakur in question. The first informant had been performing his legal and moral duties rendering his services towards the temple without fail and never attempted to take any undue advantage of his position. The accused-applicants Ram Prakash Pandey and Guddu Pandey are the sons of late Baba Vishambhar Dayal who in his life time had violated the covenants of Sarvarakar document and had entered into an agreement of sale in favour of Smt. Narendra Kaur. It was resisted by the public at large and he was thereafter removed from the position of Sarvarakar. The first informant was thus made the Sarvarakar thereafter. Despite this fact and full resistance, Baba Vishambhar Dayal had sold some of the properties to Narendra Kaur. The applicant initiated several proceedings in order to bring back the temple property and in that regard certain litigations are going on, the details of which have been enumerated in the F.I.R. On the day of incident at about 10.00 A.M. when the first informant had gone to have a meeting, he got information that the accused applicants had gone to take unlawful possession of the residence. A general call of meeting was declared to reach the temple premises but the applicants did not allow the first informant to speak in the meeting. The moment the first informant tried to address the public, the applicants made a criminal assault. Accused-applicant Guddu Pandey brought gun and hurled filthy abuses and gave the threat to eliminate the first informant. Not only this, he fired at him but a man of public namely Anand Pal Singh pushed up the barrel of the gun which could save the life of the first informant. The first informant was assaulted by lathi. The local police evaded to take any action and the first informant was asked to enter into a compromise only. Medical examination papers show fracture on the body of the first informant. According to the version of the F.I.R. as the police dillydallied over the matter and did not lodge the correct F.I.R. was running from pillar to post and that explains the delay in lodging the F.I.R.
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.
Application lacks merit and therefore stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019
M. Kumar