High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:154547 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27581 of 2024 Applicant :- Aakash And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Kumar Baisla,Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Mohit Kumar Baisla, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. D.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 27.08.2023 and cognizance order dated 10.06.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.0346 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0164 of 2023, under Sections 420, 120B, 500 I.P.C., Police Station-Meerganj, District-Bareilly, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) 2nd, Bareilly. As per the allegations in the FIR lodged on 15.06.2023 at about 15:12 hrs, under Sections 120B, 420, 500 IPC against the applicants with the allegations that on 06.04.2023 accused Meera Devi has moved a false application before police personnel regarding death of her son, Vikas on which a case being Case Crime No.92/2023, under Section 302 IPC has been lodged against the informant and his wife. Later it was found that the son was alive, therefore, sections were changed and the chargesheet under Sections 364, 120B, 401 IPC was filed and the informant and his wife were arrested, whereas during course of investigation, it was found that Meera Devi had hidden her son Vikas at the relative's place. In the aforesaid, she was assisted by Akash, Vikash and Munesh. When the aforesaid fact was discovered by the informant, the present case has been lodged after being released from jail. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case as earlier an FIR dated 06.04.2023 was lodged by Meera Devi against the informant and his wife, under Section 302 IPC, therefore, the present case is nothing but a counterblast. Placing reliance upon the statements of Manju Yaduvansi, Samar Pal, Rakesh and version of FIR as lodged by Meera Devi, learned counsel for the applicants submits that no false case was lodged as it was informed by wife of the informant, i.e. Meera Devi from mobile of Manju Yaduvansi and an information was given by some lady regarding murder of her son, which goes to show that no forgery has been played by Meera Devi and other persons in lodging the FIR. He further submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He further submits that the present FIR has been lodged as a counterblast in order to pressurize the applicants to withdraw the earlier case lodged against the accused therein not to proceed with the case. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He, therefore, submits that the charge-sheet, summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants by submitting 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 Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant 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. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. 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. 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. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 27.08.2023 and cognizance order dated 10.06.2024 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. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 5.9.2024 Jitendra/-