Court No. - 3
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22476 of 2019 Applicant :- Jagveer And 10 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sadaful Islam Jafri,Nazrul Islam Jafri(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri S.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed with the request to quash the order dated 20.3.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Bulandshahar and the order dated 25.5.2019 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Bulandshahar as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.236 of 2016 (Anil Kumar Vs. Jagveer and others), under Sections 147, 323, 452, 506, IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Bulandshahar by which (1) learned magistrate has summoned the applicants in the aforesaid Sections (2) by the impugned order dated 25.5.2019 summoning order passed by the learned magistrate has been affirmed in criminal revision by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Bulandshahar in Criminal Revision No.411 of 2017.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the request for quashing the entire complaint proceedings.
It appears from the perusal of the record attached with this application that an FIR was lodged by O.P. No.2 stating that on the application given by him against unauthorised ramp and on his complaint on 21.8.2015 by the order of the District Magistrate the employees of the Municipal Corporation came there to demolish those ramps by J.C.B. Machine whereupon all the applicants with lathi and weapons in their hand came to his house and abused him and threatened him with dire consequences and trespassed into his house and committed maarpeet with him and when people gathered there, they ran away threatening the complainant's side. On the basis of this FIR police investigated the matter and final report was submitted. On the receipt of the final report notice was issued to the first informant who filed a protest application pointing out that they have supported the allegations of the FIR even then the F.R. was filed by the police.
Considering the statements recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, Cr.P.C. of the informant and his wife Mamta, the learned magistrate finding prima facie evidence against the applicants set aside the final report and summoned the applicants for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 452, 506, IPC. Against this order a revision was filed by the applicants' side in the Session Court and the same was rejected confirming the summoning order. Aggrieved by both the orders this application has been filed invoking the inherent power of this Court.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that it was a totally false case and there was no evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and without giving weight to the final report submitted by the I.O. the impugned order was passed, which is liable to be set aside and the entire complaint case is liable to be quashed.
From the perusal of the impugned orders it appears that two witnesses including the informant and his wife supported the FIR version and their statements have been recorded by the Investigating Officer. So far as the fact of no injury is concerned, the informant has given the explanation that because the injuries were not serious in nature, therefore, he did not go for the examination of those injuries. It is pertinent to mention that the offence under Section 323, IPC denotes simple injury and the learned magistrate found it to be sufficient explanation and believing on the statements of both the informant and his wife passed the impugned order. It is also pertinent to mention that since the whole occurrence took place inside the house of the complainant/informant, his wife was a natural witness of the whole incident and she supported the FIR version. More pertinently the order of the magistrate has been affirmed by the order passed in the revision, hence, this fact that the case was false and the F.R. was submitted by the police on investigation looses its significance. I do not find just and valid reason for interfering in the order, hence, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings and impugned order is refused.
This application is disposed of with the observation that if the applicants surrender before the learned magistrate and apply for bail within a month from the date of receipt of this order, their bail application shall be heard and decided expeditiously, if possible on the same day.
For one month from today, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
Order Date :- 10.6.2019 T. Sinha