Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13853 of 2021 Applicant :- Vikas And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Rai,Garun Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed challenging charge sheet no. 483 of 2019 dated 9.12.2019 submitted in Case Crime No. 390 of 2019 under Sections 452, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar, the cognizance taking order/summoning order dated 14.1.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar in case no. 313/9 of 2020 (State vs. Vikas & others) arising out of above mentioned case crime number as well as entire criminal proceedings pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar.
4. Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. It is then contended that from perusal of FIR dated 14.7.2019 giving rise to present criminal proceedings, it is evident that occurrence is shown to have occurred on 7.6.2019 whereas FIR has been lodged with a delay of more than one month and seven days. However, in the FIR there is no explanation regarding delay in lodging FIR. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that since present criminal proceedings have been initiated with delay, which has not been explained, consequently, same are not sustainable and therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court.
5. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned AGA contends that after registration of above mentioned FIR, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of above mentioned case crime number under Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer recorded statement of first informant and other witnesses who have supported the prosecution story as unfolded in FIR. It is then contended that on the basis of material collected by investigating officer during course of investigation, which is substantially adverse against applicants charge-sheet dated 9.12.2019 has been submitted against applicants whereby and whereunder applicants have been charge-sheeted under Section 452, 323, 504 & 506. In the charge-sheet so submitted, as many as nine prosecution witnesses have been nominated. It is thus urged that at this stage it cannot be said that prosecution of applicants is false or there is no material to support prosecution of applicants. Learned AGA has then invited attention of Court to statement of first informant as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and on basis thereof, learned AGA contends that the first informant- opposite party no. 2 has duly explained the circumstances in which the FIR dated 14.7.2019 came to be lodged. It is urged that it cannot be said that there is no explanation by the first informant/opposite party no. 2 regarding delay in lodging the FIR. Learned AGA lastly submits that charge-sheet is the outcome of investigation and since no deficiency, irregularity or illegality has been pointed out in investigation of concerned case crime number, consequential charge-sheet cannot be challenged. In case no offence under any of the charging Section is made out against applicants, same can be agitated by applicants before court below at the time of framing of charges. On the basis of aforesaid premise, it is urged that no interference is required by this Court in the present application.
6. When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.
7. Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned AGA for State and 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 applicants. All the submissions made at Bar relate to the disputed defence of applicants, which cannot be adjudicated upon this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court cannot appriase and appreciate evidence to record a finding one way or other. Same can be decided by trial court itself upon conclusion of trial of above mentioned case. At this stage only prima 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.
8. In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
9. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021/nd