Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29331 of 2019 Applicant :- Satish Maurya @ Satish Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 30.03.2019 as case no. 92 of 2019 (State vs. Satish Maurya and others) arising ut of Case Crime No.17 of 2019 under section 354Kha, 376, 511, 504, 323 IPC and 3 (1) (i) (B) SC/ST Act, Police Station Chakiya, District Chandauli pending before Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, Chandaui and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants- accused have been falsely implicated by opposite party no. 2 because one civil suit no. 49 of 2017 was filed by the father of opposite party no. 2 Daya Ram against the accused-applicant no. 3 Gulab Maurya and his family members praying therein for an injunction to be issued restraining them from making any interference in the property in dispute. The said property, in fact, belonged to accused-applicants which was being wrongly claimed by the father of opposite party no. 2 as his own property. He has also drawn the attention of the Court towards khatauni which is annexed at page 61 of the paper book, in which plot no. 20 Ka is entered in the name of one Badri Maurya, who is father of accused-applicant no. 3. Further it is argued that one NCR was lodged by accused applicant no.3 against the brother of opposite party no. 2 in which the date of occurrence is entered as 23.9.2018. In the said case, charge sheet has been submitted. The accused-applicants showing the present occurrence of the same date have initiated a false case, as mentioned in the FIR that opposite party no. 2 was tried to be molested by the accused-applicants which is nothing but malicious prosecution. The charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer without conducting the investigation in proper manner and therefore the same needs to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet stating that there is sufficient evidence on record against the accused-applicant.
I have gone through the FIR. It is recorded in it that the husband of the applicant was missing for last seven years because of which the opposite party no. 2 was staying with her father, who is of scheduled caste category. On 23.9.2018 at 4.00 P.M. when opposite party no. 2 had gone for cutting grass, the accused-applicant no. 1 told her to cut grass from his field. Thereafter, when the victim/opposite party no. 2 reached there, she was thrown down on the ground and he attempted to commit rape upon her and right then when she screamed loudly, other accused applicant nos. 2 and 3 came there and started abusing the opposite party no. 2 by using her caste indicative words. She was threatened to be killed and her blouse was torn. The veracity of the statement of witness cannot be tested in the proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P/C. and it cannot be denied that the cognizable offence is made out against the accused-applicants.
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 and 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 of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, the applicants may approach the trial court to seek discharge, if so advised, and before the said forum, they may raise all the pleas which have been taken by them here. If such application is made, the same shall be decided by the trial court in accordance with. The committal court shall commit the case within 30 days subject to compliance of provision of section 209 Cr.P/C. to facilitate the trial court to hear and dispose of discharge application.
The applicants may appear before committal court within 30 days to get their case committed to the Court of Sessions so that the accused may move discharge application before it. For a period of 30 days from the date of order, no coercive action shall be taken. But if the accused do not appear before the Committal court, the said court shall take coercive steps to procure their attendance.
With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 AU