Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16861 of 2021 Applicant :- Ramjani @ Imaran Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge sheet dated 15.06.2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 216 of 2020, under Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC, Section 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) S.C./S.T. Act and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Bhogapn, District Mainpuri, Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 19.10.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act) in Special Sessions Trial No. 147 of 2020 (State Vs. Ashiq @ Nizammuddin and others), arising out of above mentioned Case crime number, as well as entire proceedings of aforesaid Special Sessions Trial, now pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Ex. POCSO Act, Mainpuri.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. Applicant has been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. It is then contended that allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. No conviction of applicant is possible as per allegations made in F.I.R. Statement under Sections 164 Cr. P. C. does not fulfil requirement of Section 354 IPC. It is thus urged that present criminal proceedings have been initiated on account of an ulterior motive. As such, present criminal proceedings are not only malicious, but also an abuse of process of Court. Consequently, same are liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. He contends that applicants Ramjani and another Ashiq are the named accused in F.I.R. He further submits that after registration of F.I.R. dated 16.05.2020, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr. P. C. During course of investigation, he examined various witnesses including first informant under Section 161 Cr. P. C. Statement of victim under Section 164 Cr. P. C. was also recorded, wherein she has supported the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. Witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr. P. C. have also supported the prosecution story. On the basis of above as well as other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, which is substantially adverse to applicant he opined to submit a charge sheet dated 15.06.2020. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet, whereby accused Ashiq has been charge sheeted under Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC, Section 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) S.C./S.T. Act and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act, whereas accused Rasmjani i.e. (the applicant herein) has been charge sheeted under Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC, Section 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) S.C./S.T. Act and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act. In the charge sheet so submitted, as many as 8 prosecution witnesses have been nominated.
On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A. contends that it cannot be said at this stage that prosecution of applicants is false or there is no material to support the prosecution of applicants. In support of above, he has also relied upon paragraph 37 of judgement of Apex Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, A.I.R. 2019 Supreme Court 2499, wherein following has been observed in paragraph 37.
"37. For issuance of process against the accused, it has to be seen only whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of issuance of process, the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of the materials on record. The Court must apply its mind to the allegations in the charge sheet and the evidence produced and satisfy itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The Court is not to examine the merits and demerits of the case and not to determine the adequacy of the evidence for holding the accused guilty. The Court is also not required to embark upon the possible defences. Likewise, 'possible defences' need not be taken into consideration at the time of issuing process unless there is an ex- facie defence such as a legal bar or if in law the accused is not liable. [Vide Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another(2012) 11 SCC 465]."
It is next contended that charge sheet is outcome of investigation. Since no deficiency, illegality or irregularity has been pointed out in investigation of concerned case crime number, consequently, charge sheet cannot be challenged.
It is lastly submitted that since entire material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation has not been brought on record, submissions urged by learned counsel for applicants in support of present application or otherwise cannot be examined in view of observation made by Apex Court in last sentence of paragraph 25 of judgement in Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 580, which reads as under:-
"The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation."
On the basis of above, learned A.G.A. submits that no indulgence be required by this Court.
When confronted with aforesaid, learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of 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 applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed defence of the applicant, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of it's jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. This Court in exercise of it's jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot appraise or appreciate evidence to record a finding one way or the other. Such an exercise can be undertaken only by trial court upon trial of above mentioned criminal case. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283.
In view of above, application fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.9.2021 HSM