Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16406 of 2021
Applicant :- Manoj Yadav @ Fauji Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet No. 1 of 2020 dated 17.03.2020 and the entire proceeding subsequent thereto arising out of S.T. No. 214 of 2021 (Case Crime No. 2569 of 2019) under Sections 302, 352 I.P.C., P.S. Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad pending in the Court of District Judge, Ghaziabad.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that as per CCTV Footage, applicant, Manoj Yadav @ Fauji was not present at the time and place of occurrence and all the witnesses have given false statements.
Learned counsel for the applicant drew attention of the Court towards the order dated 18.06.2020 passed by In-charge, Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad wherein it has been stated that investigating officer has not provided CCTV Footage and some other documents.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further referred the order dated 22.07.2020 which is at page no. 102 of the paper book wherein it has been stated that the I.O. is doing gross- negligence in the investigation.
Per-contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that these are disputed questions of fact which can be determined only by the trial court as this Court cannot enquire into the aforesaid matters.
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, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9.
All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
In view of the above, the present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.9.2021
A. Mandhani