Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28763 of 2019
Applicant :- Sunny @ Narendra (Minor)
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Kumar Mishra 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 charge sheet, the cognizance order dated 1.2.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 11 of 2019, State versus Bhanu and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 0015 of 2019, u/s 506 IPC, P.S. Raya, District Mathura pending in the Court of Juvenile Justice Board, Mathura.
Heard applicant's counsel and learned AGA. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the victim of the present case has not levelled the allegation against the applicant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Further submission is that the applicant has not committed any offence but has been falsely implicated in the present case by the first informant with ulterior motive. Certain other contentions have also been raised by the applicant's 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.
A perusal of the present application shows that the first informant Netrpal had lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant and co-accused Patwari on 13.1.2019 at 14.52 hours regarding the incident which took place on the same day at 7.00 A.M. This F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act. As per the F.I.R. the allegation regarding rape of 9 years minor daughter of the first informant has been levelled against co-accused Patwari. The role assigned to the applicant is that when he had tried to save co-accused Patwari the wife of first informant reached on the spot hearing the hue and cry of the victim. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had stated that Bhanu son of Patwari had committed rape upon her and after the incident when her mother went to the house of Bhanu for making a complaint then the present applicant had abused and also had given threatening to her. The first informant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that due to inadvertence the name of Patwari has been mentioned in the F.I.R. and in fact, the son of Patwari namely, Bhanu had committed rape upon her daughter. He has also stated that the present applicant had given threatening to her wife for dire consequences. Smt. Bhuri, the mother of the victim had also stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that when she along with her daughter went to the house of co- accused Bhanu for making a complaint the present applicant had given her threatening for life. As there was consistent case of the prosecution that the present applicant had given threatening to the victim as well as her mother so as to intimidate her. Therefore, the charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act. The learned Magistrate after perusing the entire material on record had taken cognizance of the case vide order dated 1.2.2019.
The submissions made by the applicant's 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 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 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 applicant 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 is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 CPP/-Naresh