Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9428 of 2021 Applicant :- Mahendra And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 38 of 2018 (Rishipal Vs. Mahendra & Others), under Section 147, 323, 452, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (against applicant Nos. 1 to 5) and under Sections 147, 323, 452, 504, 506, 379 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act (against applicant no. 6), registered at Police Station- Khatauli, District- Muzaffar Nagar pending in the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Muzzafar Nagar.
Brief facts of the case is that the opposite party no. 2 had filed a complaint against the applicants on 27.02.2018 that they have given possession of the land to the land mafias by taking money and have also made the land themselves in this regard opposite party no. 2 made a complaint. On 11.12.2027 at about 07:00 P.M. when the opposite party no. 2 was standing in front of his house, then applicants came there and abuses him caste derogatory language pointing to caste and committing marpit; applicant No. 2 Ajab Singh had taken country-made pistol and was threatening to kill the opposite party no. 2; inside the house his wife, brother and neighbours are sitting, they saved his life. While leaving, applicant no. 2 Ajab Singh fired upon him with the intention of dying, due to which he narrowly escaped. Opposite party no. 2 had received several injuries and while leaving, applicant No. 6 Shravan had robbed one mobile and Rs.5,025/- in his pocket.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned F.I.R. is nothing but an abuse of process of law, only with a view to harass the applicants. He further submits that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case due to malice intentions and ulterior motive. He further submits that no offence is made out against the applicants. He next contend that this is a counterblast case as the applicant no. 1 has lodged an F.I.R. against the complainant/opposite party no.2 on 23.08.2016 in Case Crime No. 994 of 2016, under Sections 457, 380, 504, 506 of I.P.C., P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffar Nagar and applicant no. 6 has also lodged an F.I.R. against the complainant/opposite party no.2 on 12.10.2017 in Case Crime No. 1312 of 2017, under Section 420 of I.P.C., P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffar Nagar. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of Apex Court in M/s Eicher Tractor Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Harihar Singh & Another, 2009 1 Crimes (SC) 144, wherein the Apex Court held that the proceedings were initiated as a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the appellants. Continuance of such proceedings will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has contented that from the allegations made in the First Information Report cognizable offence is made out against the applicants. The innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at the pre-trial stage. The defence of the applicant cannot be taken into consideration, at this stage. Therefore, the applicant do not deserve any indulgence.
From the perusal of the 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 the applicant and the reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicants is distinguishable from the facts of the present case, as such, the same is not supported the case of prosecution. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen where the allegation made in the FIR/complaint, even of they are taken at their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any cognizable offence against the accused.
Position of law for invoking the jurisdiction of inherent power of High Court has been settled by the Apex Court in following judgments:-
1. R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866;
2. Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451;
3. State of West Bengal Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561;
4. Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar, 1990 Supp SCC 686;
5. State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335;
6. State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222;
7. B.S. Joshi Vs, State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675;
8. Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri & another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & another, (2007) 13 SCC 165;
9. State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullaha Jilani & others, (2017) 2 SCC 779;
10. M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, 2021 AIR SC 1918.
After considering the totality of facts of the case and keeping in mind the position of law as well as taking into consideration the evidence collected during investigation and injury report, there is no merit in the present application. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings of the present case cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence.
In the result, the prayer for quashing of entire proceeding, charge sheet and cognizance order is refused.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is dismissed with liberty to apply for bail.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order download from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 22.10.2021 Ishan