Heard Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge sheet no. 113 of 2020 dated 1.6.2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 198 of 2020, under section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Purkazi, District Muzaffar Nagar as well as entire proceedings of Consequential Case No. 1484/9 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Shamim Ahmad @ Fauji) arising out of above mentioned case crime number now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Muzaffar Nagar.
Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. It is then submitted that applicant was a member of Central Reserve Police Force and he has served there for about 34 years. No disciplinary proceedings was ever initiated against applicant. Present criminal proceedings have been launched against applicant for some ulterior motive. As such present criminal proceedings are not only malicious but also an abuse of process of Court. Consequently, same are liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. He contends that subsequent to F.I.R. dated 15.5.2020, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined first informant and other witnesses who have supported the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. Apart from above, other material has also been collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, which is substantially adverse to applicant, Investigating Officer thus opined to submit charge sheet. Accordingly, charge sheet dated 1.6.2020 was submitted. Perusal of charge sheet goes to show that as many as six prosecution witnesses have been nominated therein. It is thus urged that at this stage, it cannot be said that prosecution case is false and there is no evidence to support the prosecution case. In support of aforesaid, reliance is placed upon judgement of Apex Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, A.I.R. 2019 Supreme Court 2499 wherein following has been observed in paragraph 37. For ready reference same is reproduced herein under:
"37. For issuance of process against the accused, it has to be seen only whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of issuance of process, the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of the materials on record. The Court must apply its mind to the allegations in the charge sheet and the evidence produced and satisfy itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The Court is not to examine the merits and demerits of the case and not to determine the adequacy of the evidence for holding the accused guilty. The Court is also not required to embark upon the possible defences. Likewise, 'possible defences' need not be taken into consideration at the time of issuing process unless there is an ex- facie defence such as a legal bar or if in law the accused is not liable. [Vide Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another(2012) 11 SCC 465]"
Learned A.G.A. further contends that charge sheet is the outcome of investigation. As no deficiency, irregularity or illegality has been pointed out in investigation, consequential charge sheet cannot be challenged. As such no interference is warranted by this Court in present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicant could not over come the same.
Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for Stateand upon perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed defence of the applicant, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot appraise or appreciate evidence, as such an exercise can be undertaken only by trial court. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283.
In view of above, application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.8.2021 Arshad