State v. Mukul

3. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 05.04.2024 at about 23:18 hours, under Sections 452, 504 and 506 IPC by O.P. No. 2 - Ram Krishna Tiwari, against the applicant with the allegation that one boy frequently used to roam around in the sector where house of O.P. No. 2 is situated. On

05.04.2024 at about 18:10 hours he forcefully entered the house of O.P. No. 2, hurled abuses and intimidated to kill them, whereupon the O.P. No. 2 and his son nabbed him and brought him to the police station, whereafter the FIR was lodged. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and the applicant has been summoned by the court concerned vide order dated 13.06.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. He further submits that the chargesheet has been submitted against the applicant on the basis of statements of interested witnesses and there is variation in the version of FIR and the allegations as attributed in the statements of interested witnesses. Emphasizing upon the statement of O.P. No. 2, learned counsel for the applicant next submits that the O.P. No. 2 has admitted about not-knowing the applicant but to the specific query as raised by the Investigating Officer, he stated that the applicant had come to meet his daughter, therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case in order to exert pressure upon the applicant so as to keep him away from his daughter.

5. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the summoning order. The charge-sheet has been submitted on the basis of version of FIR and the statements as recorded and there is nothing on record to show that the applicant had never gone to house of O.P. No. 2. It is next contended that other contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it cannot be said that no offence has been committed by the applicant.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

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 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 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 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.

9. In view of the above, no interference is called for. However, it is open for the applicant to move discharge application along with a certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. It is expected that the court concerned will decide the discharge application within a period of two months in accordance with law.

10. For a period of two months or till discharge application of the applicant is decided, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

11. The present application is disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 DS DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 05.04.2024 at about 23:18 hours, under Sections 452, 504 and 506 IPC by O.P. No. 2 - Ram Krishna Tiwari, against the applicant with the allegation that one boy frequently used to roam around in the sector where house of O.P. No. 2 is situated. On

05.04.2024 at about 18:10 hours he forcefully entered the house of O.P. No. 2, hurled abuses and intimidated to kill them, whereupon the O.P. No. 2 and his son nabbed him and brought him to the police station, whereafter the FIR was lodged. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and the applicant has been summoned by the court concerned vide order dated 13.06.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. He further submits that the chargesheet has been submitted against the applicant on the basis of statements of interested witnesses and there is variation in the version of FIR and the allegations as attributed in the statements of interested witnesses. Emphasizing upon the statement of O.P. No. 2, learned counsel for the applicant next submits that the O.P. No. 2 has admitted about not-knowing the applicant but to the specific query as raised by the Investigating Officer, he stated that the applicant had come to meet his daughter, therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case in order to exert pressure upon the applicant so as to keep him away from his daughter.

5. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the summoning order. The charge-sheet has been submitted on the basis of version of FIR and the statements as recorded and there is nothing on record to show that the applicant had never gone to house of O.P. No. 2. It is next contended that other contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it cannot be said that no offence has been committed by the applicant.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

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 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 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 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.

9. In view of the above, no interference is called for. However, it is open for the applicant to move discharge application along with a certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today. It is expected that the court concerned will decide the discharge application within a period of two months in accordance with law.

10. For a period of two months or till discharge application of the applicant is decided, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

11. The present application is disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 DS DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad