Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21868 of 2019 Applicant :- Monu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Other Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Pandey,Bhriguram Ji,Yadvendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bansh Narain Pathak
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
The present application has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 25.4.2019 passed by C.J.M. Mirzapur, in Misc. Case No. 175 of 2018 (Monu vs. Baccha Yadav), District Mirzapur and summon the accused/O.P.-2 as the trial court rejected the protest petition and accepted the final report No. 15 of 2018 without applying mind.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that prima facie case is made out against the opposite party and there is contradiction in the medical report and statements but the trial court ignoring the settled law, rejected the protest petition and accepted the final report only on the basis of presumption. It is further advanced by the counsel for applicant that the evidence has not been properly examined.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and submits that from perusal of the case diary, there are numbers of evidences and the most reliable statement is of the divers and the witnesses who clearly states that the accident took place in mid of the river and informant himself admits that incident took place accidentally when the boat was in the mid of river, hence the arguments of applicant's counsel is not acceptable at all. Learned A.G.A. placed reliance on the judgement and order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, passed in case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kunwar Singh, which is quoted below:-
"Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, we are of the view that the High Court has transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC by enquiring into the merits of the allegations at the present stage. The fact that the respondent was a signatory to the cheques is not in dispute. This, in fact, has been adverted to in the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has also noted that a person who is required to approve a financial proposal is duty bound to observe due care and responsibility. There are specific allegations in regard to the irregularities which have been committed in the course of the work of the 'Janani Mobility Express' under the National Rural Health Mission. At this stage, the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial court would do in the course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced. In doing so, the High Court has exceeded the well- settled limits on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. A detailed enquiry into, the merits of the allegations was not warranted. The FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia, particularly, in a matter involving financial irregularities in the course of the administration of a public scheme. A final report has been submitted under Section 173 of CrPC, after investigation."
From perusal of order dated 25.4.2019, it transpires that the court below has not committed any error in passing the impugned orders.
Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for applicants and well as learned A.G.A., there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Court below, therefore, the prayer for quashing for the same is hereby refused.
Accordingly, the application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Vandana