Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46527 of 2019
Applicant :- Sunil And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Bahadur Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Amar Bahadur Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G. P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 104 of 2019 (State Vs. Sunil and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 94 of 2018, under Sections 147, 452, 308 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bhamora, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Member Magistrate, with a further prayer to stay further proceeding in the aforesaid case.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by the opposite party no. 2 because earlier the aunt of the applicant no. 1 namely Raj Kumari had lodged an F.I.R. against the opposite party no. 2 being Crime No. 529 of 2017, under Section 376 I.P.C. & 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O. Act and thereafter another F.I.R. being crime No. 538 of 2017 was lodged by the applicant no. 1 against the husband of the opposite party no. 2 and other companions under Section 307, 504 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., in which three persons have suffered injuries on the part of the accused applicants and charge sheet has been submitted. A false case by way of cross case has been prepared which is the present one, one injured have shown to have suffered injury which has come on account of scuffle taken place between two sides. No such injury was caused by any of the accused in the said occurrence, hence, charge sheet has been submitted erroneously and the same needs to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of quashing and argued that as per the contents of the F.I.R. cognizable offence is made out.
I have gone through the F.I.R. and find that the accused applicant along with three other co-accused stated to have caused injuries after entering into their house in which the Suraj had received injury on his head. The charge sheet has been submitted after investigation in this case. Looking to the fact that both side have beaten each other and because of that only the cross reports are lodged. I do not find any ground to quash the charge sheet in the present case as cognizable offence is found to have been made out. The police after investigation and after having recorded the statements of as many as 10 witnesses has submitted the charge sheet against the accused applicant. The truthfulness of the statements of these witnesses cannot be adjudged in proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same would require trial.
The arguments which are made by the learned counsel for the applicant are related to factual aspect which cannot be seen at this stage in the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
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, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019/VPS