Court No. - 25
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2660 of 2019
Applicant :- Ishaq Ahmad
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Khare Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Ishaq Ahmad with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 13.04.2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2018 under Sections 353, 504 and 506 I.P.C. as well as cognizance taking order of A.C.J.M., Mahoba along with complete proceeding of Case No.2267 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2018 (State Vs. Ishaq Ahmad and others), under Sections 353, 504 and 506 I.P.C. on the ground that the information obtained by the Information Act reveals the informant to be an employee of private company hence, no offence under Section 353 I.P.C. is made out and the applicant- petitioner is a practising lawyer and advocate against informant- complainant in two cases, hence, a false implication has been made.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application with the contention that case crime number was investigated and the statements of the informant along with other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. thereby charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance by Magistrate has been taken.
It is apparent that the informant Rubi was deputed to work as District Programme Manager in Nagar Palika as an out sourcing employee. She was deputed to perform the public service and Right to Information Act shall not applicable over above out sourcing agency. This information is being argued but above line is not being read that the Right to Information Act and an information given therein, may never be used in a judicial proceeding.
The First Information Report was lodged. The investigation was made, statement of informant is there, which is reiteration of the version of information, the same is corroborated by the statement of other witnesses, hence, the factual evidence and analysis being argued by learned counsel for the applicant is not to be appreciated under limited jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court as has been propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
Having consider the facts and reasons mentioned as above. This application merits its dismissal.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Kamarjahan