Court No. - 50
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29593 of 2018 Applicant :- Indrajeet Rajbhar And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Sri Syed Irfan Ali and Mohd. Naushad, Advocates, have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2, is taken on record.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.8.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Ballia and order dated 13.7.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Ballia as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1649 of 2016 (Prem Chandra Rajbhar vs. Indrajeet Rajbhar and others), under sections 379, 504, 506 and 323 I.P.C, Police Station Ubhaon, District Ballia, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Ballia.
Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Syed Irfan Ali as well as Mohd Naushad, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, learned A.G.A for the State and also perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants have falsely been implicated by the opposite party No. 2 in Complaint Case No.1649 of 2016 (Prem Chandra Rajbhar Vs. Indrajeet Rajbhar and others) as a matter of counter blast; that the son of opposite party No.2, Shailesh alias Monu outraged the modesty of applicant no. 5 in the evening of 28.5.2016 at 5.30 P.M and upon her protest he also committed Marpeet with her regarding which the applicant no.1 lodged the F.I.R against Shailesh alias Monu (son of opposite party No.2) on 29.5.2016 at 12.30 P.M bearing Case Crime No. 0833 of 2016 under sections 354(A), 342, 323 I.P.C, Police Station Ubhano, District Ballia. Certified copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-8 of the application.
That in furtherance of the above F.I.R above Shailesh alias Monu (son of opposite party No.2) was arrested on 29.5.2016 vide memo of arrest at Annexure-9 of the application and was released on bail vide order dated 30.5. 2016 at Annexure-10; that subsequent thereto after seven days the father of Monu accused of above Case Crime No. 0833 of 2016 moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C, as a matter of counter blast was absolutely false and concocted story stating that on 30.5.2016 at 7.00 P.M. when Shailesh alias Monu (son of opposite party No.2,) was sitting over flour mill in a portion of his house, the applicant no. 3 came to his flour mill and when the son of opposite party No.2 asked for arrears, he returned and thereafter all the applicants came back and by abusing him committed marpeet with him, damaged the property and thrown away wheat/paddy of other customers and when the wife of opposite party No. 2 and neighbours arrived there and intervened the applicant no. 2 fled away with Rs. 850/- and flour bag while Lota and Thalee were forcibly taken away by the applicant no. 5; that the entire incident is absolutely false and there is no injury report on record and the allegations about loot of money, damage of property or throwing of wheat and paddy of other customers are absolutely wrong and false; that the learned Magistrate, who treated the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C as complaint case, has passed impugned order of cognizance dated 21.8.2017 without applying his judicial mind and without finding a prima facie evidence of offences against the applicants; that the proceedings of complaint case was filed with mala fide intention, as a matter of counter blast and proceedings are liable to be quashed including the impugned order of cognizance; that the applicants preferred Crl. Revision No.206 of 2017 against the impugned summoning order dated 21.8.2017 which was dismissed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.3, Ballia vide order dated 13.7.2018 at Annexure-7 ; the order passed in revision is also wrong and incorrect.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 supported the impugned order and contended that the application under section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed was absolutely false and incorrect allegations ; that it has been made clear that in the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C dated 7.6.2016 itself that when opposite party No.2 went to concerned police station, the police did not take any action rather challaned his son Shailesh alias Monu in fictitious case and after obtaining bail he informed concerned Superintendent of Police by Registry and since no action has been taken so he has moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C which was treated as complaint.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for parties and perusal of the record, I find that it is proved from Annexures No. 8, 9 and 10 that regarding the incident of outraging modesty of applicant No.5 by the son of opposite party no. 2 on 28.5.2016, an F.I.R was lodged against him on 29.5.2016, he was arrested on same day and was released on bail on next day i.e 30.5.2016. Since the incident of outraging modesty of applicant No.5 and did take place prior to the alleged incident mentioned in the complaint of opposite party No.2, it is clear that the application under section 156(3) Cr.P. C has been moved as a matter of counter blast is false and concocted allegations and the learned Magistrate has acted wrongly in taking cognizance of offence on the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C treated as complaint against all the applicants while the allegations of offence under section 379 I.P.C were made only against the applicant No.2.
In view of discussion made above, I find that the learned Magistrate has acted wrongly in passing the impugned order of summoning without due application of mind and the learned Additional District Judge, Ballia has acted wrongly in dismissing the revision.
The impugned orders of summoning dated 21.8.2017 as well as order of Additional Sessions Judge dated 13.7.2018 are liable to be quashed to prevent the abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice.
The application is, accordingly, allowed and impugned orders dated 21.8.2017 and 13.7.2018 mentioned above as well as proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1649 of 2016 (Prem Chandra Rajbhar vs. Indrajeet Rajbhar and others), under sections 379, 504, 506 and 323 I.P.C, Police Station Ubhaon, District Ballia, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Ballia are quashed.
Order Date :- 12.9.2018 G.S