Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14856 of 2021
Applicant :- Lakshman Verma And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amresh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding as well as the impugned order dated 29.01.2020, Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Deoria in Complaint Case No. 4532 of 2019 (Saroj Devi Vs. Lakshman Verma & Others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Deoria.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is inconsistency in the statements of witnesses and application under 156 (3) Cr.P.C. He further submitted that magistrate did not pass a detailed order after enquiry as provided under law. He further submitted that one Civil Suit is pending between the parties. Applicants have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated. There is nothing on record to show that applicants are involved in commission of this offence.
Per-contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the contention of learned counsel for the applicants and stated whether the statement of victim is true or false cannot be determined at this stage.
In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharastra and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 850, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held:
"iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare case (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule."
Following other authorities can be cited on the aforesaid point:
R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604.
This Court cannot embark upon enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the victim and other witnesses. Thus, these are disputed questions of fact which can be adjudged upon in the trial only.
In view of the above, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2021
A. Mandhani