High Court
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
Applicant :- Kallu Alias Bijendra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Tripathi,Shri Krishna Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the impugned Charge Sheet No.349/2024 dated 23.10.2024 along with Cognizance/Summoning order dated 06.01.2025 and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.30 of 2025 (State vs. Kallu @ Bijendra & Others), arising out of Case Crime No.0379/2024, under Sections 117(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S., Police Station- Burhana, District- Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Burhana, District- Muzaffar Nagar. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged on 12.09.2024 at 14:22 hours, under Sections 117(2), 352 & 351(3) BNS by opposite party no.2 against three named accused (the applicants) with the allegations that on 04.09.2024 at about 10:30am when the opposite party no.2 was returning with his grandson who had gone to school, the applicant no.1 dashed his motorcycle into them due to which they fell. There was some altercation between the two after the aforesaid incident. After some time, the applicant no.1 came along with other co-accused persons to the house of opposite party no.2 and abused as well as assaulted him due to which the opposite party no.2 sustained injuries on his ribs, teeth, face, chest and other parts of the body. On hearing the scream, the people from the vicinity came and intervened to save them. The applicant went away after threatening for dire consequences. It has also been stated that the applicants are powerful persons. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and the applicants have been summoned, therefore, the present application has been filed. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present FIR has been lodged against the applicants with false and frivolous allegations due to ulterior motive. He further submits that the present case is a politically motivated one. He further submits that the real story is that on 04.09.2024 at about 11:00pm, it is the opposite side who caused injuries to the father of applicant nos.2 and 3, for which an application under Section 173(4) BNSS has also been moved prior to the present FIR being lodged by opposite party no.2 as the police personnel being influenced by the opposite party had not lodged his FIR. On the aforesaid application, the court concerned has passed the order dated 21.11.2024 for lodging of the FIR, after which the present FIR has been lodged in which investigation is going on. The present case has been lodged in order to exert pressure upon the applicants. He also submits that it is the father of applicant nos.2 & 3 who has sustained injuries in the incident of 04.09.2024. Emphasizing upon certain documents as annexed in the application including the statement of doctor and that of the Investigating Officer, learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence under the relevant sections is made out against the applicants. He also contends that no independent witness has come forward to prove the incident as alleged. He further submits that applicant nos.2 and 3 are students, therefore, the Court may take a sympathetic view against them. He also contends that it is a case of malicious prosecution, therefore, 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 on the other hand submits that from the version of the FIR as well as statements of charge sheet witnesses, prima facie offence is made out. He further submits that the applicants have admitted the incident of 04.09.2024 wherein father of applicant nos.2 & 3 has sustained injury, therefore, it cannot be said that no incident took place on the said date. The medical of opposite party no.2 shows fracture in the chest and nasal bone fracture. The doctor has also given a statement regarding the injuries as sustained by opposite party no.2. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relates to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XIII BNSS 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 A.G.A. 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 528 BNSS 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 lastly (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 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 No.349/2024 dated 23.10.2024 and Cognizance/Summoning order dated 06.01.2025 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 :- 6.5.2025 Kalp Nath Singh
Applicant :- Kallu Alias Bijendra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Tripathi,Shri Krishna Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the impugned Charge Sheet No.349/2024 dated 23.10.2024 along with Cognizance/Summoning order dated 06.01.2025 and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.30 of 2025 (State vs. Kallu @ Bijendra & Others), arising out of Case Crime No.0379/2024, under Sections 117(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S., Police Station- Burhana, District- Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Burhana, District- Muzaffar Nagar. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged on 12.09.2024 at 14:22 hours, under Sections 117(2), 352 & 351(3) BNS by opposite party no.2 against three named accused (the applicants) with the allegations that on 04.09.2024 at about 10:30am when the opposite party no.2 was returning with his grandson who had gone to school, the applicant no.1 dashed his motorcycle into them due to which they fell. There was some altercation between the two after the aforesaid incident. After some time, the applicant no.1 came along with other co-accused persons to the house of opposite party no.2 and abused as well as assaulted him due to which the opposite party no.2 sustained injuries on his ribs, teeth, face, chest and other parts of the body. On hearing the scream, the people from the vicinity came and intervened to save them. The applicant went away after threatening for dire consequences. It has also been stated that the applicants are powerful persons. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and the applicants have been summoned, therefore, the present application has been filed. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present FIR has been lodged against the applicants with false and frivolous allegations due to ulterior motive. He further submits that the present case is a politically motivated one. He further submits that the real story is that on 04.09.2024 at about 11:00pm, it is the opposite side who caused injuries to the father of applicant nos.2 and 3, for which an application under Section 173(4) BNSS has also been moved prior to the present FIR being lodged by opposite party no.2 as the police personnel being influenced by the opposite party had not lodged his FIR. On the aforesaid application, the court concerned has passed the order dated 21.11.2024 for lodging of the FIR, after which the present FIR has been lodged in which investigation is going on. The present case has been lodged in order to exert pressure upon the applicants. He also submits that it is the father of applicant nos.2 & 3 who has sustained injuries in the incident of 04.09.2024. Emphasizing upon certain documents as annexed in the application including the statement of doctor and that of the Investigating Officer, learned counsel for the applicants submits that no offence under the relevant sections is made out against the applicants. He also contends that no independent witness has come forward to prove the incident as alleged. He further submits that applicant nos.2 and 3 are students, therefore, the Court may take a sympathetic view against them. He also contends that it is a case of malicious prosecution, therefore, 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 on the other hand submits that from the version of the FIR as well as statements of charge sheet witnesses, prima facie offence is made out. He further submits that the applicants have admitted the incident of 04.09.2024 wherein father of applicant nos.2 & 3 has sustained injury, therefore, it cannot be said that no incident took place on the said date. The medical of opposite party no.2 shows fracture in the chest and nasal bone fracture. The doctor has also given a statement regarding the injuries as sustained by opposite party no.2. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relates to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XIII BNSS 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 A.G.A. 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 528 BNSS 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 lastly (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 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 No.349/2024 dated 23.10.2024 and Cognizance/Summoning order dated 06.01.2025 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 :- 6.5.2025 Kalp Nath Singh