High Court
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants today in the Court, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, 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 25.10.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 23.12.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.1235 of 2024 (State vs. Pappu alias Mukh Ram and others), arising out of Case Crime No.184 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Chhajlait, District-Moradabad, pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Moradabad. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged on 26.08.2024 at about 00:31 hrs by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants under Sections 115(2), 110, 352, 351(2) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act with the allegations that the son of opposite party no.2, namely, Amit Kumar was called by the applicants on 23.08.2024 at about 11:50 p.m. by making phone call through some girl. When Amit Kumar reached the place, the applicants assaulted him using caste indicative words, due to which he sustained injuries and became unconscious. When he regained conscious, he returned home and informed about the entire incident. The applicants have assaulted him and abused by using caste indicative words. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted and the applicants have been summoned. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. After the incident, which happened on 23.08.2024, the parties appeared before the concerned police personnel and have orally agreed to settle the matter, however, the opposite party no.2 did not agree to the verbal consent given during the compromise and proceeded to lodge the FIR. The injuries as sustained by the son of the opposite party no.2 are simple in nature. No such incident took place. From the version of FIR, it cannot be said that offence under the relevant section is made out as the caste indicative words has not been specified. 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. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as the counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that from the version of FIR and the statement of charge sheet witnesses, on the basis of which charge sheet has been submitted, the offence under the relevant section is made out. The FIR has also been lodged from the side of applicants against the opposite party no.2 on 29.09.2024 for the same incident, therefore, the incident cannot be denied. From the statement of injured-Amit Kumar, it is clear that the incident took place, wherein caste indicative words like Chamatta were used by the applicant. They further submit that the injuries sustained by the injured are on vital part, i.e. skull. However, the statement of doctor; Dr. Rajiv Singh has not been annexed. As regards the submission made by the counsel for the applicants regarding compromise, the aforesaid is being denied by the counsel for the opposite party no.2 as nothing is there on record. 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 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. 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 25.10.2024 and cognizance order dated 23.12.2024 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 :- 23.4.2025 Jitendra/-
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants today in the Court, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, 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 25.10.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 23.12.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.1235 of 2024 (State vs. Pappu alias Mukh Ram and others), arising out of Case Crime No.184 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Chhajlait, District-Moradabad, pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Moradabad. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged on 26.08.2024 at about 00:31 hrs by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants under Sections 115(2), 110, 352, 351(2) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act with the allegations that the son of opposite party no.2, namely, Amit Kumar was called by the applicants on 23.08.2024 at about 11:50 p.m. by making phone call through some girl. When Amit Kumar reached the place, the applicants assaulted him using caste indicative words, due to which he sustained injuries and became unconscious. When he regained conscious, he returned home and informed about the entire incident. The applicants have assaulted him and abused by using caste indicative words. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted and the applicants have been summoned. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. After the incident, which happened on 23.08.2024, the parties appeared before the concerned police personnel and have orally agreed to settle the matter, however, the opposite party no.2 did not agree to the verbal consent given during the compromise and proceeded to lodge the FIR. The injuries as sustained by the son of the opposite party no.2 are simple in nature. No such incident took place. From the version of FIR, it cannot be said that offence under the relevant section is made out as the caste indicative words has not been specified. 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. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as the counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that from the version of FIR and the statement of charge sheet witnesses, on the basis of which charge sheet has been submitted, the offence under the relevant section is made out. The FIR has also been lodged from the side of applicants against the opposite party no.2 on 29.09.2024 for the same incident, therefore, the incident cannot be denied. From the statement of injured-Amit Kumar, it is clear that the incident took place, wherein caste indicative words like Chamatta were used by the applicant. They further submit that the injuries sustained by the injured are on vital part, i.e. skull. However, the statement of doctor; Dr. Rajiv Singh has not been annexed. As regards the submission made by the counsel for the applicants regarding compromise, the aforesaid is being denied by the counsel for the opposite party no.2 as nothing is there on record. 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 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. 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 25.10.2024 and cognizance order dated 23.12.2024 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 :- 23.4.2025 Jitendra/-