Court No. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16615 of 2021 Applicant :- Rubi Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jugal Kishor Khanna Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Jugal Kishor Khanna, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet no. 129 of 2020 dated 12.09.2020 in Case No. 5690 of 2021 (State vs. Rubi Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 138 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 308 of I.P.C., Police Station- Indargarh, District- Kannauj, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj with an alternative prayer to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that as the charge-sheet has been submitted for non-cognizance offences (Sections 323/504 IPC), therefore, it shall be deemed to be complaint under Explanation to Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. Hence, the order taking cognizance as well as summoning order, as a State case, is not a correct procedure and, therefore, the order of cognizance and summoning order is liable to be quashed.
This argument of learned counsel for the applicants is not tenable at this stage only because charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 323, 504 along with 308 I.P.C. and NCR has been converted as Case Crime No. 138 of 2020.
Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants have falsely been implicated in this case which is a cross case lodged by opposite party no.2 on 21.08.2020 to the counter blast of the F.I.R. lodged by applicant no.1 against opposite party no.2 on 18.05.2021 for the same incident which arose between the parties regarding a registered will deed executed in favour of applicant no.1. In the alleged incident, persons from both sides have sustained injuries.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case. All the submission made at the Bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CR.P.C.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA and have gone through the materials available on record carefully and I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the applicants.
Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430, (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
The submissions made by the applicants' counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the case, and also the material available on record make out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the impugned charge-sheet or the summoning order or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
Needless to state that in the eventuality of surrendering and moving bail application by the applicants before competent Court of Jurisdiction, the Court below shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, considering all aspects of the matter.
However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the competent Court below is to act, in accordance with law.
This application stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 27.9.2021 Vikas