State v. Dashrath and Others), arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Court No. - 68 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6421 of 2023 Applicant :- Dashrath And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari,Varsha Jatav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Fakhruzzaman Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard Mr. Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Fakhruzzaman, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and K.P. Pathak, 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 summoning order dated 10.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M., Konch, District Jalaun, as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.416 of 2020 (State
Facts
Vs. Dashrath and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.85 of 2020, under Sections 354, 452, 323, 342, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kailiya, District-Jalaun, pending before Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M., Konch, District Jalaun. Brief facts of the case are; an FIR has been lodged by Pooja Jatav, opposite party no.2, against the applicants, on 03.07.2020 at 15:57 hours, under Sections 354, 342, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., which came to be registered as Case Crime No.0085 of 2020, with the allegations that opposite party no.2 is permanent resident of Jalaun and when she was smoothing the surface of platform (Chabutara) with cowdung, the applicants reached there and stating that this platform (Chabutara) belongs to them, started abusing the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 was caught hold by the applicants and while they were beating her, the parents, brother as well as aunt of opposite party no.2 came to save her. In the aforesaid incident, the opposite party no.2 as well as her aunt have sustained injuries. Dashrath applicant no.1 tore the clothes of opposite party no.2, and the cousin of opposite party no.2 came to save her. The applicants also threatened the opposite party no.2 for her life and ran- away. After investigation in the matter, charge sheet has been submitted and applicants have been summoned. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier an FIR was lodged by Bhabhi of applicant nos.1, 2 & 3 against the opposite party no.2, therefore, the present case has been lodged by opposite party no.2, as a counterblast, to falsely implicate the applicants. He further submits that no such incident took place and states that the opposite party no.2 is in habit of fighting with the persons of the vicinity and lodging cases against them. One such F.I.R. has been placed on page 24A, which was lodged by opposite party no.2 against Chandra Bhushan and Govind Das, in which, after investigation, final report has been submitted. He further submits that applicants have already been released on bail. Therefore, the summoning order as well as entire proceedings of the case may be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse of process of law. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submit that the material as collected by the Investigating Officer is credible & clinching as well as documentary evidences showing the complicity of commission of the crime has been found, therefore, the charge sheet has been submitted. After perusing the case diary, learned A.G.A. points out that as per injury report of opposite party no.2, nine injuries are there, which have been caused by hard and blunt object. The aforesaid goes to show that incident took place and injuries have been sustained by the opposite party no.2 as well
Legal Reasoning
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 applicant's 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, (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 and lastly (ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315. 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 summoning order dated 10.08.2022 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 :- 28.4.2023 Rahul. Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
as her aunt Smt. Phool Kumari, which have been supported by the prosecution witnesses. They further submit that other 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.