Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21707 of 2019
Applicant :- Vikki And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Monis 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 No.265 of 2018 dated 8.7.2018, cognizance order dated 4.9.2018 as well as the entire proceedings in Criminal Case no.2626 of 2018 (State vs. Sachin and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0273 of 2018, u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C., Police Station-Titavi, District-Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Muzaffar Nagar.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned A.G.A. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the present criminal proceedings are outcome of the malafide intention of opposite party n.2 as well as village partibandi. Further submission is that as the applicants were selected for the post of Constable Civil Police and constable P.A.C., therefore, in order to hamper their careers the applicants have also been named in the F.I.R. by opposite party no.2. Certain other contentions have also been raised by the applicants' 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.
Perusal of the F.I.R. of the present case shows the allegation that due to some previous enmity the applicants along with other co-accused persons had assaulted upon Arjun and Smt Satto on 5.6.2018. Further allegation is that the applicants along with co-accused persons were armed with lathi, danda and sariya and they had also threatened and abused the opposite party no.2. In addition to assault made upon Arjun and Smt. Satto. During the investigation the Investigating Officer had found that there was some fracture in the hand of injured Smt. Satto due to assault made by the co- accused persons including the applicants. After conducting the investigation the Investigating Officer on the basis of statement of the injured person as well as on the basis of the medical report has submitted charge sheet against the applicants along with co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 and 325 IPC. The learned Magistrate after perusing the entire material on record including case diary has taken cognizance vide order dated 4.9.2018.
The submissions made by the applicants' 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 applicants 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.
In view of aforesaid this application stands dismissed.
In the last the counsel has submitted that the applicants desire to seek their discharge and for that a liberty may be granted to him.
In this regard it may be observed that under the statutory scheme of law there is a stage where the Court decides upon the appropriateness of framing the charge against the accused after hearing them or pass order of discharge. If under appropriate section at appropriate stage the applicants move before the court below seeking their discharge it is expected that the court shall adjudicate upon the same in accordance with law. For this purpose no additional judicial order is required.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019
M. Kumar