Court No. - 38
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16474 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt. Usha And 02 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the charge-sheet dated 28.12.2018 in connection with Case Crime No. 16 of 2017, under Sections 323, 452, 354, 354(Kha), 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Saroorpur, District Meerut as well as cognizance order dated 7.2.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate Sardhana, District Meerut and entire proceedings of Case No. 37 of 2019, (State vs. Deepak Mogha and others) pending in the court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Sardhana, District Meerut.
Heard Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in this case, F.I.R. was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 323, 452, 504, 506, 354, 354(Kha) IPC and 66-E of Information and Technology Act but the charge-sheet was submitted only in under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506, 354 and 354(Kha) IPC. The applicants are innocent and has not committed any offence. No prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. The Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet without any evidence. The criminal proceedings as well as the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate are against the provision of law and is illegal, hence, is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant submitting that at this stage, only prima-facie cognizable case is to be seen, merit and demerit of the case cannot be adjudicated at this stage, as such, application is liable to be dismissed.
In State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav (2016) 1 SCC (Crl.) 510, it has been held by the Apex Court that 'the power of judicial superintendence under Article 227 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly when there is patent error or gross injustice in the view taken by a subordinate court'.
From perusal of material on record, it transpires that in the F.I.R., it has specifically been mentioned that on 17.7.2016, the accused-applicants had entered into the house of complainant, hurled abuses, outraged her modesty by tearing her cloth and also beaten her.
I am of the opinion that all the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants relates to the disputed question of fact which can be raised before the court below at appropriate stage. From perusal of record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants at this stage. The prayer for quashing the aforesaid charge-sheet as well as impugned order is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear or surrender before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail in the aforesaid case, their prayer for bail shall be considered as expeditiously as possible by the court below in accordance with law.
With aforesaid direction /observation, the instant application finally stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Saurabh