High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:130560 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21185 of 2024 Applicant :- Irshad @ Irshad Ali And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanesh Kumar Mishra,Shailendra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J
Legal Reasoning
Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicants for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. 8. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be 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. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:- (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866, (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122, (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682, (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454, (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and laslty (ix) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143. 9. In view of the aforesaid, 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. 10. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 15.10.2022 and cognizance / summoning order dated 22.04.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage. 11. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 12.8.2024 Md Faisal
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Gyanesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet No. 313 of 2022 dated 15.10.2022, cognizance / summoning order dated 22.04.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 152 of 2024 (State v. Shahid & others), arising out of Case Crime No.0336 of 2022, under Sections 147, 504, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station Phulpur, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj. 3. As per the allegations levelled in the FIR lodged on 3.8.2022 at 21:03 hours under Sections 147, 504, 506, 427 IPC, against 11 named accused and two unknown persons including the applicants who are four in numbers. As per the FIR the aforesaid accused persons came and cut the tress on the bhoomidhari land of opposite party no.2. When opposite party no. 2 objected the same they used abusive language and assaulted him. They also threatened for dire consequences. Mosque situated at bhoomidhari land of opposite party no. 2 where they have placed a loudspeaker in order to grab the aforesaid land where mosque is situated and creating there nuisance. They also disturbed entire area by using loudspeaker and cutting the trees in the area. Being a powerful persons they enter into the fight with the persons who object the same. After internal charge sheet submitted on 15.10.2022 and the cognizance order has been passed on 22.4.2024. Challenging the cognizance order as well as entire proceedings the present application has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that the charge sheet is taken to be complete only when statements are recorded and material evidence has been collected after perusing which cognizance can be taken. The Investigating Officer must make clear and make complete entries in all columns in the charge sheet so that the Court can clearly understand which crime has been committed by the accused and what is the material evidence available on the file. The statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and other documents along with list of witnesses should be enclosed in the charge sheet. In the present case the role played by the accused has not been mentioned separately, therefore, it cannot be considered what role has been attributed to which accused. Thus when incomplete charge sheet has been submitted on basis of which cognizance order has been passed the same is unjustified and illegal. 5. The second leg of the arguments as raised by learned counsel for applicants is that issuance of process should not be an empty formality and the concerned court should have applied its mind and pass reasoned order to show what was the sufficient grounds for proceeding to pass the cognizance order. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Lalankumar Singh & Others vs. State of Maharashtra 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1030 and Sharif Ahmad and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 444. He next submits that no offence under relevant section is made out. 6. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that perusal of the charge sheet goes to show that all the columns have been filled and statements recorded under Section 161 as well as other documents have also been placed along with charge sheet. The Investigating Officer has also come to conclusion that one of the accused person was not present at the time of incident as he was at Mumbai, therefore, he has been exonerated. From the aforesaid it can be said that charge sheet is complete. He next submits that there is no illegality, infirmity in the cognizance order as the same has been passed after perusing the records and proper application of mind. The concerned court found sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused while taking cognizance and has arrived at a conclusion that prima facie case against accused is made out. No detailed reasons for the same is required as has been held in the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII