State of U.P v. Sandeep Kumar Saini, under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64970 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10377 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Saini Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. As per office report dated 25.04.2025 notice has been served upon O.P. No. 2 through his mobile no. 9368820080 as is evident from the report of learned C.J.M., Saharanpur, which has been placed on record. In view thereof, the service of notice upon O.P. No. 2 is sufficient, however, no one has put in appearance on his behalf.
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
2. Heard Sri Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Awasthi, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record. 3. The applicant has preferred the instant application challenging proceedings of Special Trial No. 2789 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 77 of 2024, State of U.P. v. Sandeep Kumar Saini, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(va) SC/ST (PA) Act, Police Station - Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur including charge-sheet dated 14.04.2024 as well as cognizance order dated 20.12.2024. 4. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged by O.P. No. 2 on 20.02.2024 at 09:35 hours against the applicant under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), with the allegation that on 18.02.2024 at 9 O'clock in the night the O.P. No. 2 required two beddings as there were guests at his place, therefore, he went to the house of applicant requesting for the same, and when he knocked on the door and requested the applicant for the same, the applicant used caste indicative words, abused him and also assaulted him with an iron rod, due to which the informant sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Several persons from the vicinity rushed there and saved him. After investigation, charge- sheet has been submitted and the applicant has been summoned by the court concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first information report has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations due to ulterior motive. Though the incident is alleged to have occurred on 18.02.2024, wherein first information report has been lodged after the delay of 2 days without giving plausible explanation for the same. From the statement of witnesses it appears that a story has been built up to falsely implicate the applicant taking benefit of the special caste to which the O.P. no. 2 belongs. Chargesheet witnesses have stated about the injuries sustained by the informant as he had consumed alcohol and fell, due to which he sustained injuries. Placing reliance upon Page-81 of the petition, he submits that 112 was dialed at about 23:41 hours on 18.02.2024 when the incident is said to have taken place at 9 O'clock, therefore, everything has been done in a planned manner to falsely implicate the applicant. There is no bony injury, therefore, no offence under Section 308 IPC is made out. 6. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that two days' delay is no delay. The application has been given on 19.02.2024 for the aforesaid incident which took place in the night of 18.02.2024, therefore, no such delay is there in lodging the FIR. The chargesheet witnesses are not eye-witnesses to the aforesaid incident who have narrated fabricated story that they heard about the O.P. No. 2 being in inebriated condition as well as the fact that he had gone to the applicant's place making a request for beddings for his guests, where a fight took place between the duo and O.P. No. 2 has been assaulted by the applicant, thus, which version of the story is true, is a matter of fact, it cannot be seen by this Court while sitting in the present jurisdiction, nor this Court can conduct a mini trial in view of the settled law as laid down by Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh etc., AIR 2023 SC 1987. 7. As regards the submission that offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out, it is for the applicant to place the aforesaid fact at the proper stage before the court concerned. 8. 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 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. 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
Decision
10. In view of the above, no interference is called for. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance order is 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 DS Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad