Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4347 of 2019 Appellant :- Ramji Pandey And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Seema Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State.
The present criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 31.5.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ghazipur in Complaint Case No. 90 of 2018 (Dharmdev Ram Vs. Ramji Pandey and others), under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) Da, Dha of SC/ST Act, P.S. Saidpur, District- Ghazipur.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that on 7.9.2018 at about 4 p.m, the appellants assaulted the victim and abused him with the name of his caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate him in public view. On account of assault made by the appellants, Dharmdev Ram has suffered injuries on his person and has been medically examined.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, no offence is disclosed against the appellants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the appellants and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.
Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of complaint case is therefore refused.
However, it is directed that if the appellants appear/surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
With the aforesaid observations, this appeal is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 KU