High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 52 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78989 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5451 of 2025 Applicant :- Braj Narayan Awasthi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Srivastava,Shiv Poojan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Supplementary Affidavit, filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.K. Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State, and perused the record. 3. The applicant has preferred the instant application challenging charge-sheet dated 10.09.2023 and proceedings of Case No. 158 of 2024, State v. Braj Narayan Awasthi, in Case Crime No. 498 of 2023, under Section 309 IPC, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Auraiya, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Fast Track Court, District Auraiya.
Facts
4. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged by O.P. No. 2 on 29.08.2023 at 13:41 hours against the applicant under Section 309 IPC, with the allegation that on 29.08.2023 O.P. No. 2 received an information on his Mobile No. 9627217525 from Mobile No. 9917951234 that one unknown person carrying petrol in his hand is trying to commit self- immolation at Collectorate Campus. On receiving the information, the O.P. No. 2 along with others reached at the office of District Magistrate, where they found one person having plastic can containing petrol and he was pouring petrol over his body and trying to burn himself. On being asked about his details, he told his name to be Braj Narayan Awasthi, 42 years old, S/o Ram Sewak, Resident of Village Umarsana, Police Station Dibiyapur, District Auraiya. He also told the reason for doing such an act as he was annoyed by his brothers who were not properly dividing the property and no heed was being paid in this regard by the concerned officials. After investigation, a charge-sheet has been submitted.
Legal Reasoning
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 applicant 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.
Arguments
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is nothing on record to show that he was having petrol or any matchbox or contaminating items which could prove that he was there to commit self-immolation. He further submits that annoyed by the conduct of his brothers, the applicant had gone to move an application before the District Magistrate on 29.08.2023. Copy of said application is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit. However, a story has been built up to falsely implicate the applicant. He has also averred in paragraph-9 of the petition that he went to take petrol in a can for his motorcycle and along with that he had gone to the District Magistrate office, with an application for moving complaint against his brothers. Therefore, no offence under the relevant section is made out against the applicant. 6. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that on 29.08.2023 the applicant reached in the District Magistrate office campus to move an application and tried to commit self-immolation, information of which was given to O.P. No. 2, who caught the applicant on the spot with a petrol-can and he was pouring petrol on his body as is evident from the FIR itself. It is further contended by the learned A.G.A. that charge-sheet has been submitted after recording the statements of charge-sheet witnesses who have supported the version of FIR, and there is nothing on record to show that the applicant did not attempt to commit self- immolation at the campus of District Magistrate office. It is next contended by learned counsel for the State that other contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact and the statements of independent witnesses have not been annexed, therefore, from perusal of the records, prima facie, it cannot be said that no offence has been committed by the applicant. 7. 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 the present jurisdiction to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicant and trial is yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 8. 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
Decision
9. In view of the above, no interference is called for. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet and the proceedings of the case is refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage. 10. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 DS Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad