Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10428 of 2021
Applicant :- Vipin And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Chakshuvendra Pachau
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atul Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 25.09.2020 as well as cognizance order dated 24.03.2021 as Criminal Case No. 2529 of 2021 (State v. Vipin & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2019, under Section 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Aligarh, pending in the court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Aligarh, with a further prayer to stay further proceeding in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. Without collecting evidence and without applying his mind, the Investigating Officer has wrongly submitted the charge sheet against the applicants and learned Magistrate took cognizance on 24.03.2021 on the aforesaid charge sheet. No case is made out against the applicants under the aforementioned Sections.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of quashing and submitted that disputed questions of facts have been raised by the learned counsel for the applicants which are beyond the scope in proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the F.I.R. was registered against the applicants, statement of witnesses were recorded during investigation, after investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet and the learned Magistrate took cognizance in the matter thereafter. In the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the truthfulness or otherwise or statements of witnesses cannot be adjudicated upon. Moreover, the victim has supported the prosecution version in toto. It is pertinent to note here that under Section 134 of Evidence Act, evidence of one witness is sufficient to prove the guilt.
In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharastra and others, 2020 SCC Online SC 850, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare case (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule."
Following other authorities can be cited on the aforesaid point:
R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that this Court cannot embark upon the enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint.
In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
Learned counsel for applicants requested that order may be passed for expeditious disposal of bail application in view of Brahm Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others 2016 (95) ACC 950.
In view of the above, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail be considered and decided in view of the law laid down in Brahm Singh and others (Supra).
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021 VPS
Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR OJHA Date: 2021.10.01 14:46:24 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad