Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9255 of 2003 Applicant :- Mahesh Prasad Bajpai & Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- O.P. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Adarsh Kumar,B.N.Rai
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri O.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prem Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
In the present application, the prayer has been made for quashing the prosecution of the applicants in pursuance of the charge-sheet No.311-A of 2002 dated 8.5.2002, arising out of Case Crime No.469-A of 2002 under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Naubasta, District- Kanpur Nagar.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that a first information report from the side of applicants was lodged for the first time and the opposite party no.2 as a counter blast in order to save their skin has lodged the instant first information report implicating the applicants in a false case after procuring a fabricated injury report. As the first information report lodged by the opposite party no.2 smacks mala fide, the entire proceedings arising out of the impugned charge-sheet is liable to be quashed. Learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court towards some contradictions in the statements of eyewitnesses recorded during investigation and has argued the motive for false implication of the applicants.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has strongly opposed and submitted that there are cross cases in which both the sides suffered injuries. From the side of opposite party no.2, one person had sustained injury, however, the injury report has not been annexed by the learned counsel for the applicants. It is further stated that the injured has specifically stated that on account of lathi blow wielded on him he suffered injury on his nose.
It is further submitted that the factual controversy about the cross case and as to who was the aggressor cannot be decided in exercise of inherent powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction. Prima facie, commission of offence under Section 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants. Therefore the instant application lacks merit and the same may be dismissed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the stay order as well averments made in the present application, I do not find any merit in the application, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is bereft of merit and is dismissed. Consequently, stay order dated 25.11.2003 also stands vacated.
Office is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the concerned court within a week.
The trial court shall ensure the presence of the accused-applicants and decide the same preferably within one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018/ Vikas