High Court · 2025
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
Heard Mr. Kshitij, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Vinod Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. This application U/S 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 25.08.2024 along with Summoning order dated 17.10.2024 and the entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No.866/2024 (State vs. Faiyaz Khan and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.0195/2024, under Sections 324(4), 115(2), 352, 121(1), 132 BNS and Section 3(1)(r) SC/ST (PA) Act, Police Station- Kopaganj, District- Mau. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 29.07.2024 at 23:35 hours against four named accused with the allegations that on 29.07.2024, when the opposite party no.3 went to Gram- Shahpur for compliance of the order of concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate with respect to demarcation over the property of Harendra Yadav, the alleged accused persons created hurdle in the official work of opposite party no.3, despite the fact that they had nothing to do with the aforesaid demarcation. The alleged accused persons also misbehaved with opposite party no.3 using abusive language and caste indicative word like 'chamara'. They surrounded the opposite party no.3 and assaulted him. They also tore the field book of the order. Ram Kirti Singh & newly appointed Kshetra Lekhpal Neelam Maurya and the police personnel requested the applicants not to interfere in the peaceful official functioning of opposite party no.3, however, the applicants being powerful persons, did not concede to the aforementioned request as made by the aforesaid persons and after using abusive language tore the field book, thus, creating obstacle in official functioning of opposite party no.3. Hemant Yadav, Shahran Khan and Tehsin Khan had also witnessed the aforesaid incident. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted on 25.08.2024 and the applicants have been summoned. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations, due to ulterior motive. He further submits that the opposite party no.3 was not the then Lekhpal who was posted in the area, therefore, there is no question of his presence being there for performing of any official duty or for compliance of order passed by the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate. He also contends that there is no injury as per the medical report and there is no evidence to show that the field book was torn by the applicants. There is difference in the caste indicative words as used by the applicants in the version of the FIR as well as the statements of charge sheet witnesses. He further submits that seeing the variations, no offence under the relevant sections is made out against the applicants, 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 as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 submit that all the contentions as placed by learned counsel for the applicants are disputed question of fact which cannot be seen by this Court while sitting in jurisdiction U/S 528 BNSS. They further submit that the opposite party no.3 was sent along with police officials to assist the newly appointed Kshetra Lekhpal Neelam Maurya. The presence of opposite party no.3 is also proved from the statements of charge sheet witnesses as well as independent witnesses and the police personnel who had gone to assist in official functioning of opposite party no.3 as well as Neelam Maurya. Statement of the witnesses namely Hemant Yadav, Ram Kirti Singh and Neelam Maurya have been annexed on page no.87, 121 and 122 respectively which also support the version of the FIR. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation 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 the case, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.3 have 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 dated 25.08.2024 and Summoning order dated 17.10.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case 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 :- 10.4.2025 Kalp Nath Singh KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Heard Mr. Kshitij, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Vinod Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. This application U/S 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 25.08.2024 along with Summoning order dated 17.10.2024 and the entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No.866/2024 (State vs. Faiyaz Khan and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.0195/2024, under Sections 324(4), 115(2), 352, 121(1), 132 BNS and Section 3(1)(r) SC/ST (PA) Act, Police Station- Kopaganj, District- Mau. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 29.07.2024 at 23:35 hours against four named accused with the allegations that on 29.07.2024, when the opposite party no.3 went to Gram- Shahpur for compliance of the order of concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate with respect to demarcation over the property of Harendra Yadav, the alleged accused persons created hurdle in the official work of opposite party no.3, despite the fact that they had nothing to do with the aforesaid demarcation. The alleged accused persons also misbehaved with opposite party no.3 using abusive language and caste indicative word like 'chamara'. They surrounded the opposite party no.3 and assaulted him. They also tore the field book of the order. Ram Kirti Singh & newly appointed Kshetra Lekhpal Neelam Maurya and the police personnel requested the applicants not to interfere in the peaceful official functioning of opposite party no.3, however, the applicants being powerful persons, did not concede to the aforementioned request as made by the aforesaid persons and after using abusive language tore the field book, thus, creating obstacle in official functioning of opposite party no.3. Hemant Yadav, Shahran Khan and Tehsin Khan had also witnessed the aforesaid incident. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted on 25.08.2024 and the applicants have been summoned. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations, due to ulterior motive. He further submits that the opposite party no.3 was not the then Lekhpal who was posted in the area, therefore, there is no question of his presence being there for performing of any official duty or for compliance of order passed by the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate. He also contends that there is no injury as per the medical report and there is no evidence to show that the field book was torn by the applicants. There is difference in the caste indicative words as used by the applicants in the version of the FIR as well as the statements of charge sheet witnesses. He further submits that seeing the variations, no offence under the relevant sections is made out against the applicants, 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 as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 submit that all the contentions as placed by learned counsel for the applicants are disputed question of fact which cannot be seen by this Court while sitting in jurisdiction U/S 528 BNSS. They further submit that the opposite party no.3 was sent along with police officials to assist the newly appointed Kshetra Lekhpal Neelam Maurya. The presence of opposite party no.3 is also proved from the statements of charge sheet witnesses as well as independent witnesses and the police personnel who had gone to assist in official functioning of opposite party no.3 as well as Neelam Maurya. Statement of the witnesses namely Hemant Yadav, Ram Kirti Singh and Neelam Maurya have been annexed on page no.87, 121 and 122 respectively which also support the version of the FIR. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation 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 the case, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.3 have 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 dated 25.08.2024 and Summoning order dated 17.10.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case 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 :- 10.4.2025 Kalp Nath Singh KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad