Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9429 of 2003 Applicant :- Udai Veer Singh & Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- L.K. Pandey,Dinesh Kumar Gupta,Lakshman Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,D.S. Rajpoot
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the proceedings charge-sheet dated 14.12.2000 and entire proceeding in Case No. Nil of 2000 (State Vs. Udai Veer Singh and others), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 337, 307 and 325 of I.P.C. at Police Station- Kalpi, District- Jalaun.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case by the opposite party no.2 as an arm twisting measure and as a counter blast to the F.I.R. lodged by the applicant Udai Veer Singh for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 337, 307 and 325 of I.P.C. at Police Station- Kalpi, District- Jalaun. It is argued that in the F.I.R. lodged by the applicant- Udai Veer Singh, the matter was investigated and charge-sheet was laid against the opposite party no.2 and his other associates. They were also put to trial in Session Trial No.138 of 1999 (State Vs. Ram Singh & others) in which the opposite party no.2 and others have been convicted. The applicants have been falsely implicated in this case on an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by opposite party no.2 on which the F.I.R. was lodged after a considerable period. It is further argued that according to F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party no.2, applicants-accused who were seven in numbers had assaulted injured Ram Singh, opposite party no.2., however, he has sustained only three injuries which are superficial and simple in nature caused by hard blunt weapon. However, injury no.1 was advised for X-ray and was kept under observation and underneath which fracture of lower part of ulna bone was detected. It is argued that medical report and X-ray Report has been procured by opposite party no.2 in order to save their skin. However, the police in collusion with the opposite party no.2 did not investigate the case properly and has illegally submitted charge-sheet based on which the impugned judgment proceedings has arisen. Therefore, taking in account the overall facts and circumstances of the case and especially the participation of so many accused which is not supported by medical evidence, the entire proceedings of aforesaid case and charge- sheet apparently smacks of malafide and are liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has strongly opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that after a thorough investigation charge-sheet has been laid against the applicants in the year 2000. Prima facie, in view of the injury report and the X-ray report, the version setup by the opposite party no.2 is fully corroborated and the Court in exercise of inherent powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction cannot look into the credibility or otherwise of the medical reports or the alleged mala fide, as in the X-ray Report fracture of lower part of ulna bone has been detected. There is no abuse of process of law and thus the application is liable to be dismissed.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and especially that it is a case of injury in which fracture has also been found, I am of the opinion that at this stage the ground of mala fide and counter blast as stated by learned counsel for the applicants cannot be gone into.
The prayer for quashing the charge-sheet and the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused. The application lacks merit and is dismissed, accordingly.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall 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 applicant surrenders and applies for 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.
Office is also directed to communicate this order to the court concerned within fortnight.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 Vikas