Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11300 of 2021 Applicant :- Jai Prakash And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge sheet dated 27.5.2020 submitted in Case Crime No.96 of 2020, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Mariyahu, District Jaunpur, as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.689 of 2020 (State Vs. Jai Prakash and others) Case Crime No.96 of 2020, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Mariyahu, District Jaunpur,pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1 Janupur.
Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated. Allegations made in FIR are false and concocted. No incident as alleged ever occurred. Injury reports of alleged injured namely Smt. Sudama Devi, Bhupendra Pratap Singh and Rai Sahab are forged and fabricated. Consequently, same cannot be relied upon. Investigating Officer has not collected any such material against applicants on basis of which applicants could have been charge sheeted. There is no material to support prosecution of applicants. On the aforesaid premise it is thus contended that present criminal proceedings initiated by opposite party 2 are not only malicious but also an abuse of process of Court. Consequently, same are liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra learned AGA has opposed this application. Learned AGA contends that subsequent to FIR dated 22.5.2020, investigating officer proceeded with statutory investigation of FIR No.0096 of 2020 in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, investigating officer recorded statement of first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Witnesses so examined have substantially supported the prosecution story as unfolded in FIR. Investigating Officer also collected other material namely injury report of Smt. Sudama Devi, Bhupendra Pratap Singh and Rai Sahab which support the prosecution case. On basis of aforesaid Investigating Officer upon completion of investigation of FIR No.0096 of 2020 concluded that a charge sheet should be submitted. Accordingly, investigating officer submitted charge sheet dated 27.5.2020 wherein six prosecution witnesses have been nominated. It is thus urged that at this stage it cannot be said that prosecution of applicants who are charge sheeted accused is false or there is no material to support the prosecution of applicants. Learned AGA further contends that charge sheet is the outcome of investigation. Since no irregularity, illegality or deficiency in investigation of above mentioned FIR No.has been pointed out the consequential charge sheet cannot be challenged. He therefore contends that present application is liable to be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed defence of the applicant, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot appraise or appreciate evidence, to record a finding one way or the other. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283.
In view of above, application fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 piyush