State v. Pankaj alias Mooraj and others, pending before Additional Sessions Judge
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:183271 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34452 of 2024 Applicant :- Pankaj Alias Mooraj And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramsagar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Ramsagar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rizwan Ahmad, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash charge sheet no. 8/2020 dated 21.01.2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 313 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, arising out of Case Crime No. 381 of 2018, Police Station Bhadohi, District Bhadohi, and the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 79 of 2020, State v. Pankaj alias Mooraj and others, pending before Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C.-1, Bhadohi. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 26.09.2018, which came to be registered as Case Crime 381 of 2018 against four named accused, who are applicants, with the allegation that the marriage of daughter of opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with applicant no. 4 – Suraj Kumar three years ago. Details of gifts as well as dowry are mentioned in the FIR which were given to the applicants as per capability and capacity of opposite party no. 2. From the very beginning, the applicants mentally and physically tortured her for dowry demand. Incident regarding beating and using abusive language have also been detailed in the FIR. Specific allegation against the applicant no. 1 who happens to be Dewar of daughter of opposite party no. 2 regarding committing rape for one year has been alleged in the FIR. The daughter of opposite party no. 2 was also tortured at the time of pregnancy. Information of illness of daughter of opposite party no. 2 was given by the applicants and when the informant came to the hospital, they ran away from there without supporting her at the time when she required treatment and support of family members. After investigation, chargesheet has been submitted against the applicants and they have been summoned hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. There are omnibus, general, vague and bald allegations against all family members. The applicants have also supported her providing treatment at the time when she was pregnant and became ill. The documents of medical treatment have been annexed with the petition. 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. on the other hand submits that there are specific allegations in the version of the FIR as well as statements of opposite party no. 2 recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., which prove that the allegations are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be seen at this stage. 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 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. 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 applicant and trial is yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 (viii) 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 applicant 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 and proceedings of the trial is 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 :- 22.11.2024 DS