Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32032 of 2019 Applicant :- Kuldeep Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Murari Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Shyam Murari Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 21.5.2019 passed by learned court of Shamli by which two charges have been framed against the present applicant in S.T. No. 730 of 2018, under Section 376, 511 IPC, P.S. Babri, District Shamli.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that opposite party no. 2 has falsely implicated the accused applicant because earlier one P.I.L. was filed against the State along with four others, which included opposite party no. 2 as well who was one of the encroachers and the same was disposed of by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent no. 3, copy of the said order is annexed at page 48 of the paper book. When the compliance of the said direction was not made, Contempt Application was also preferred (Civil No. 4900 of 2016), order of which is at page 50 of the paper book. Further he has pointed out that one case Crime No. 443 of 2016 was filed against the opposite party no. 2, under Section 147 336 and 506 I.P.C., which is under investigation. Feeling aggrieved by this action of the accused- applicant, the opposite party no. 2 has initiated the present false case just to malign his reputation as he is a social activist, which is mentioned in paragraph 6 of the affidavit. There is no evidence on record to frame charge under the above mentioned Sections, yet the trial court has framed charges vide impugned order dated 21.5.2019, hence said order needs to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of quashing and has argued that there is sufficient evidence on record to frame charges against the accused applicant under the above mentioned sections and moreover it is also apprised by the learned A.G.A. that the statements of witnesses, which have been recorded by the I.O. have not been annexed.
Looking to the fact that the statements, which the Investigating Officer has recorded of the witnesses, have not been annexed, yet it is being argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that charges under the above mentioned sections are not made out against the applicant on the basis of evidence collected, the application deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed as this court has no means to assess the evidence.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 A.P. Pandey