Anil Kumar Verma v. Brijesh & Others) by learned ACJM, Ambedkar Nagar as well as the judgment

1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material placed on record.

2. The present application under section 482 of Cr. P.C (Section 528 of BNSS) has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the order dated 19.07.2024 passed in complaint case No 310/2017 ( Anil Kumar Verma Vs Brijesh & Others) by learned ACJM, Ambedkar Nagar as well as the judgment/order dated 16.01.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 113/2024 (Brijesh Kumar Verma V/s State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.) by the learned sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicants that the present petition is the second round of litigation, inasmuch as on the earlier occasion, the applicants had filed a petition under section 482 being No. 5098/2024 (Sarvesh Kumar Verma & Ors. V/s State of U.P & Anr.) seeking (i) quashing of the summoning order dated 04.11.2017, which was issued under section 147, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, in the aforesaid complaint by the learned ACJM, Ambedkar Nagar; and (ii) order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 78/2021 (Shakuntala Verma & ors. V/s State of U.P & Anr.), wherein a coordinate bench of this court had been pleased to dispose of the said revision vide an order dated 31.05.2024 with the following directions:- "3.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a complaint case no.310 of 2017 was lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant as a counter blast to escape himself from molestation but opposite party no.2 was acquitted in the said case. Being aggrieved the prosecutrix filed an appeal and the court concerned issued bailable warrant against the applicant.

4.Learned counsel for the applicants also prays for permission to appear through counsel before the concerned trial court within a period of three weeks from today and move an application claiming discharge on behalf of the applicants and this Court may direct the trial court to decide the application so moved by the applicants.

5.Learned A.G.A. has disputed the aforesaid contentions made by learned counsel for the applicants but he has not opposed the request made by learned counsel for the applicants to move a discharge application before the trial court through counsel.

6.All the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel 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 learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. In the process of invoking its inherent jurisdiction, this court cannot be persuaded to have a pre trial before the actual trial begins. The submissions made by the 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.

7.The quashing of the charge sheet and the entire proceedings can also be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and also in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 make the position of law in this regard clear.

8.In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which might justify the quashing of charge sheet/summoning order/impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The trial court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.

9.As requested by learned counsel for the applicants, the permission to appear through counsel before the concerned trial court within a period of three weeks from today and move an application claiming discharge on behalf of whom this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved, is granted. The concerned trial court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits in accordance with law within a period which shall not exceed a period of four months from today."

4. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants that although they had filed an Application for discharge u/s 245 Cr.P.C before the concerned Trial Court, however the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 19.07.2024 without considering the facts of the facts & grounds agitated by them in the said Application. It has been further submitted that even the revision filed by the applications before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, has been rejected without appreciating the contradicting evidence apparent from the records of the said case. On the other hand, learned AGA has vehemently objected to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that the submission are largely based on disputed facts, which cannot be looked into by the learned Trial Court at the point on consideration of charge and as such the discharge application had been rightly rejected by the learned Trail court as well as the learned session judge.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that admittedly the grounds which have been taken by the applicants are in the nature of defence and disputed facts, which has to be tested on the anvil of evidence. The other ground sought to be relied upon for quashing of the complaint is that the present complaint has been filed as a counter-blast.

6. The matter requires consideration.

7. Let notice be issued to the respondent No.2 by all modes.

8. The State-respondents as well as respondent No.2 are directed to file their reply/Counter affidavit within three weeks.

9. List/put up this case immediately after three weeks.

10. The prayer for stay of further proceedings in the complaint case No. 310/2017, PS: Ibrahimpur, district- Ambedkar Nagar shall be considered on the next date of hearing. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 -Piyush- [Om Prakash Shukla, J.]

1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material placed on record.

2. The present application under section 482 of Cr. P.C (Section 528 of BNSS) has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the order dated 19.07.2024 passed in complaint case No 310/2017 ( Anil Kumar Verma Vs Brijesh & Others) by learned ACJM, Ambedkar Nagar as well as the judgment/order dated 16.01.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 113/2024 (Brijesh Kumar Verma V/s State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.) by the learned sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicants that the present petition is the second round of litigation, inasmuch as on the earlier occasion, the applicants had filed a petition under section 482 being No. 5098/2024 (Sarvesh Kumar Verma & Ors. V/s State of U.P & Anr.) seeking (i) quashing of the summoning order dated 04.11.2017, which was issued under section 147, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, in the aforesaid complaint by the learned ACJM, Ambedkar Nagar; and (ii) order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 78/2021 (Shakuntala Verma & ors. V/s State of U.P & Anr.), wherein a coordinate bench of this court had been pleased to dispose of the said revision vide an order dated 31.05.2024 with the following directions:- "3.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a complaint case no.310 of 2017 was lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant as a counter blast to escape himself from molestation but opposite party no.2 was acquitted in the said case. Being aggrieved the prosecutrix filed an appeal and the court concerned issued bailable warrant against the applicant.

4.Learned counsel for the applicants also prays for permission to appear through counsel before the concerned trial court within a period of three weeks from today and move an application claiming discharge on behalf of the applicants and this Court may direct the trial court to decide the application so moved by the applicants.

5.Learned A.G.A. has disputed the aforesaid contentions made by learned counsel for the applicants but he has not opposed the request made by learned counsel for the applicants to move a discharge application before the trial court through counsel.

6.All the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel 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 learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. In the process of invoking its inherent jurisdiction, this court cannot be persuaded to have a pre trial before the actual trial begins. The submissions made by the 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.

7.The quashing of the charge sheet and the entire proceedings can also be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and also in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 make the position of law in this regard clear.

8.In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which might justify the quashing of charge sheet/summoning order/impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The trial court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.

9.As requested by learned counsel for the applicants, the permission to appear through counsel before the concerned trial court within a period of three weeks from today and move an application claiming discharge on behalf of whom this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved, is granted. The concerned trial court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits in accordance with law within a period which shall not exceed a period of four months from today."

4. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants that although they had filed an Application for discharge u/s 245 Cr.P.C before the concerned Trial Court, however the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 19.07.2024 without considering the facts of the facts & grounds agitated by them in the said Application. It has been further submitted that even the revision filed by the applications before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, has been rejected without appreciating the contradicting evidence apparent from the records of the said case. On the other hand, learned AGA has vehemently objected to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that the submission are largely based on disputed facts, which cannot be looked into by the learned Trial Court at the point on consideration of charge and as such the discharge application had been rightly rejected by the learned Trail court as well as the learned session judge.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that admittedly the grounds which have been taken by the applicants are in the nature of defence and disputed facts, which has to be tested on the anvil of evidence. The other ground sought to be relied upon for quashing of the complaint is that the present complaint has been filed as a counter-blast.

6. The matter requires consideration.

7. Let notice be issued to the respondent No.2 by all modes.

8. The State-respondents as well as respondent No.2 are directed to file their reply/Counter affidavit within three weeks.

9. List/put up this case immediately after three weeks.

10. The prayer for stay of further proceedings in the complaint case No. 310/2017, PS: Ibrahimpur, district- Ambedkar Nagar shall be considered on the next date of hearing. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 -Piyush- [Om Prakash Shukla, J.]