High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65104 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5432 of 2025 Applicant :- Vinod Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar,Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant in Court today is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same. 2. Heard Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the State and perused the material available on record. 3. The instant application has been filed to quash the order dated 16.12.2024 as well as criminal proceeding of Case No.1897 of
Facts
2004 (State Vs. Vinod Driver), arising out of Case Crime No.40 of 1992, under Sections 279, 337, 338 I.P.C., Police Station-Kurara, District-Hamirpur, pending before Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur. It is further prayed to direct the learned Magistrate/Court below to pass reasoned and speaking order on the objection filed on 07.02.2025 by the applicant. 4. Brief facts of the case are; an FIR was lodged on 20.02.1992 at 20:30 hours by opposite party no.2 against unknown persons with the allegations that an accident took place between Tempo No.UP91250 and Tractor Trolley No.UGJ4242, wherein some persons received injuries. During investigation, it was found that an application was moved by the owner of the vehicle namely, Sughar Singh s/o Gore Lal, R/o Babhrauli, Police Station- Kurara, District-Hamirpur on 24.02.1992 for release of his vehicle. Charge sheet has been filed against Vinod s/o Ati, R/o Gogumau, P.S. Gajner, District Kanpur on 23.08.1992 and the concerned Court took cognizance on 07.07.1993.
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 aforesaid order 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. 10. The prayer for quashing the order dated 16.12.2024 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. 11. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Rahul. Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the concerned police officials tried to serve a Form no.04 u/s 82 Cr.P.C. in the month of January, 2025 upon the applicant, who refused to take the same stating that he is not the same person but the police has forcibly given the notice to the family of the applicant. Accordingly, an objection was moved by the applicant on 07.02.2025 mentioning that he is not the same person nor the driver of the vehicle which dashed into the vehicle of opposite party no.2. In the matter, bailable warrants have been issued against the alleged accused since 12.01.1994. Subsequently the non bailable warrants and proceeding u/s 82 Cr.P.C. have been issued on 18.10.2004. The applicant as soon as he came to know about the proceeding u/s 82 Cr.P.C. by forced service being made to his family by the police officials, the aforesaid application/objection was moved. The aforesaid application has been rejected by order dated 17.02.2025 in a cursory manner without application of judicial mind. He further submits that applicant is not the same person who is required in the case as he was not the driver of the vehicle which dashed into the vehicle of opposite party no.2, therefore, the aforesaid proceedings of the case may be dropped. 6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the order vide which the objection of the applicant has been rejected has not been challenged, although it has been brought to the knowledge of the Court by means of a supplementary affidavit. He further submits that the bail application as moved by the applicant bearing the same address as that of the applicant, which also proves that the applicant is the same person who is required in the matter. The sons of the owner of the vehicle are the persons who have given security in favour of the applicant as has been brought to the knowledge of this Court on the basis of instructions received by learned A.G.A. Even otherwise perusal of the order dated 17.02.2025 goes to show that the applicant has not placed any material on record to prove his innocence and also the fact that he is not the same person who is required in the proceedings accordingly. Learned A.G.A. further submits that trial Court has rightly analyzed the issue of identity and the fact that the applicant is the same person, who is required in the proceedings. Therefore, nothing remain in this application and it is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. 8. This Court finds that the averments made in the application as well as grounds taken 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 B.N.S.S. to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicant and trial is to yet to commence only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 is not only malicious but also are abuse of the 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, (ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315. 9. 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