Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36413 of 2019
Applicant :- Saddam And 9 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of order dated 16.05.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.407 of 2019 (State Vs. Saddam and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 09 of 2018, u/s 147, 148, 332, 353, 436, 186, 189 I.P.C., P.S.- Bhognipur, District- Kanpur Dehat, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned AGA. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the discharge application has been rejected arbitrarily without consideration of any material placed by the applicants in support of discharge application. It has been further submitted that the applicants are innocent and have not committed any crime. Other contentions have also been raised by the applicants' counsel but all of them relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
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 F.I.R. has been lodged by Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Station Incharge, P.S. Bhognipur, district Kanpur Dehat. Allegations in the F.I.R. are that on 5.1.2018, the informant along with his team comprising several S.I. and constables raided the house of the accused namely Saddam who was the accused in Case Crime No. 553 of 2016, under Sections 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act and 11 घ Animal Cruelty Act, Case Crime No. 554 of 2016, under Sections 307, 427 I.P.C and Case Crime No. 581 of 2016, under Sections 3/5/8 Caw Slaughter Act and 11 घ Animal Cruelty Act, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and as soon as the team reached the house of the said accused Saddam, a person was found standing on the door and on being asked about his name, he told that he himself is Saddam. He was informed about his involvement in the aforesaid cases and was taken into custody at around 09.30 P.M. On being arrested, the said accused namely Saddam called his father Wali Mohammad and mother Faihmeeda, sisters Ajra and Mahvish. On his call, his father and mother came on the spot and started abusing the team for arresting their son. They also tried to release the said accused Saddam from the custody of the police. Thereafter Wali Mohammad called Naushad, Wasim, Shoab, Javed, Savir, Nooruddin and on his call, the aforesaid persons along with 20- 25 other persons of the village came to the spot and attacked the police personnel. By attacking the police personnel the mob was able to free the said accused Saddam from the custody of police and on the insistence of Wasim, Wali Mohammad, Faimita, Ajra and Mahvish,Wasim, Shoab, Naushad, Javed, Savir and others, in order to falsely implicate the police personnel, put Chhappar on fire. When the police personnel tried to douse the flame the accused started pelting stones upon police team whereby additional police forces were called up and as such after arrival of additional police forces, the aforesaid police team was saved.
The submissions made by the applicants' learned 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 more elaborate 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 F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes 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 charge sheet 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.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.
The application therefore stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 shiv/ Naresh