Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27256 of 2018
Applicant :- Rati Ram And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jaysingh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Jaysingh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 153 of 2014 (Smt. Pooja Vs. Rati Ram and others) in S.T. No. 19 of 2016 (Smt. Pooja Vs. Rati Ram and others), under Section 394/397 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Lalitpur, pending in the court of Addl. Session/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Lalitpur, as well as impugned order dated 17.7.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Lalitpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the present case has been filed against the applicant no. 1 by the opposite party no. 2 as a counter blast because earlier Urmila Devi, Bhabhi of the accused-applicant no. 1 had lodged an F.I.R. against husband of opposite party no. 2 and his family members under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504 & 506 IPC, in which after investigation charge sheet has been submitted under Section 308 IPC only and trial is proceeding. Applicants have been falsely implicated. If the proceedings are allowed to continue that would amount to abuse of process of law.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing.
The present complaint case has been filed against the applicants stating that on 17.7.2014 at 7:00 pm, the accused-applicant had taken away a lot of jewellery which is narrated in the complaint and also did mar-peet with the opposite party no. 2. The said statements have been supported by the two witnesses. It is further contended that the accused-applicant no. 2 was not present on the place of occurrence as he was 300 Km away from there, hence plea of alibi has also been taken. Some other factual aspect has also been pointed out. But these arguments involve finding to be given on factual aspect of the case which is not permissible in proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as that would require trial.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
However, the accused-applicants may appear before court below and may make a prayer for discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C.. If such an application is moved before the court below, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.9.2018
A.P. Pandey