Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14530 of 2021 Applicant :- Ramesh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, 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 summoning order dated 16.02.2021 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 714 of 2018, (Singhasan Vs. Ashutosh @ Monu), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1) (Dha) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Jataha Bazar, District- Kushinagar, pending in the court of A.S.J/ Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kushinagar.
Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no. 2 has filed application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C when the F.I.R has not been lodged by the police, therein stating that his bamboo court is situated in Araji No. 570 at about 8.00 a.m applicants and other co-accused persons were cutting his bamboos at the same time after restraining them the applicants and other co-accused persons committed marpeet with the opposite party no.2 by punch, slaps stating that there forefathers were zamindars and this bamboo court is grown by them. Meantime, daughter-in- law of the opposite party no. 2 reached at the spot, they pushed her and molested her with derogatory atrocities "chamain". Raghunath, Sharda and Nandu and other villagers came on the spot after hearing their screams, saw the incident and saved them.
Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that Araji no. 570 having no bamboo court of the complainant, other allegations has roped against the applicants on the basis of false and frivolous evidences. It is further submitted that as per Khasra, Khatoni of Araji No. 570 no bamboo court has been shown.
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 applicant. The innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at the pre-trial stage. The incident has taken place in a public view and the defence of the applicants 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. 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 summoning order as well as the entire proceeding of the complaint case no. 714 of 2018 is refused.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is dismissed. Order Date :- 29.10.2021 PS