Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
By the instant petition, applicant-accused seeks quashing of the proceeding of Complaint Case No.1039 of 2014 (Dilip Kumar Vs. Nagesh) under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(i) (X) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Barsathi, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Special Magistrate, SC/ST Act/Additional Special Judge, Court No.4, Jaunpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the FIR lodged by Dilip Kumar, after investigation, circle officer has submitted the final report dated 18th October, 2013, opining therein that no offence was found to be made out against the present applicant. He further submits that the investigating officer during investigation has recorded the statement of witnesses including wife of opposite party no.2 Dilip Kumar, who has also stated that no offence was committed by the applicant. He further submits that on account of enmity of former Pradhan Rajit Shukla, the applicant the present Pradhan of the village is being harassed and unnecessarily prosecuted.
On behalf of the State, learned AGA submits that after submission of final report, protest petition was filed by the first informant/injured. Three witnesses were examined by the court on oath. They all had supported the version contained in the First Information Report. Only thereafter on 6th January, 2015, summoning order was passed after noticing the facts of the case and evidence adduced by the first informant. He further submits that commission of cognizable offence is made out against the present applicant. For this reason, only on the basis of investigation and evidence collected in the course thereof, the complaint case registered on the protest petition of the first informant, cannot be quashed.
From the perusal of the record, factual submissions by both the counsels are substantiated and only question to be examined by the Court is that at the time of passing the summoning order whether the court has committed any illegality or it has reason to believe that prosecution was malicious or malafide.
After going through the protest petition, it transpires that present applicant is an influential person, a fact substantiated from the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that he is village Pradhan.
On behalf of the first informant, probity of the investigation has been challenged.
In view of these averments, I think summoning order was passed after due application of mind because probity of investigation was disputed. The evidence collected by the investigating officer cannot be made the basis to hold that prosecution is malicious.
Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.6.2016 SKD