High Court · 2025

Vs. Vijay Shankar Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No.44 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Pawara, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of A.C.J.M. IIIrd, Jaunpur.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.06.2020 at 12:50 hours an F.I.R. was lodged by Shivshankar Yadav against four named accused persons, who are applicant in the instant petition with the allegation that at 8:30 A.M. due to land and money dispute his distinct relative (Pattidar) abused and assaulted informant side, due to which Sangita Devi, Asha Devi, Manaj Kumar and Amul sustained serious injuries and after threatening for life the alleged accused persons ran away. After investigation, charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted on 04.07.2020 and learned Magistrate has summoned the accused persons by order dated 21.08.2020.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent, who have been falsely implicated in the instant case, wherein the learned trial Court without application of judicial mind in a printed proforma has taken cognizance vide order dated

12.08.2020 and summoned the applicants to face trial under Section under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C. He further submits that feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicants approached this Court by means of filing Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.1067 of 2021 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.02.2021 quashed the order dated

12.08.2020 and directed the court concerned to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law within a period of one month from that date. He further submits that after the aforesaid, the learned Magistrate in a routine manner has passed a fresh cognizance order dated 21.08.2021 without perusing the case diary. Hence the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that several civil and criminal disputes are pending between the parties, who are distinctively related each other and, therefore, in order to exert pressure upon the applicants the present F.I.R. has been lodged. He further submits that the Investigating officer has not recorded statements of the alleged injured witnesses. He next submits that applicant no.1, 3 and 4 were not present at the place of occurrence as applicant No.1 was at Maharastra, in order to earn his livelihood, on the date of the incident. Lastly, he submits that neither the names of the injured persons have been mentioned any where nor their statements have been recorded. Several other submission have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants has also been touched upon at length.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that nine persons namely, Shivshanker Yadav (Informant), Laxman Yadav (Constable), Dr. Sanjay Rai, Dr. A. K. Pandey, S.I. Maheshwardin Rajpoot, Sangita, Asha Devi, Aman Kumar and Amul have been examined including the injured persons. The injury reports of the injured persons have been annexed as Annexure No.2 to the application, which also go to show that the incident took place on 24.06.2020 and Sangita, Asha Devi, Aman and Amul sustained injuries. He further submits that as regards submission of counsel for the applicants that applicant no.1 was at Maharashtra on the date of the incident, para 17 of the affidavit itself goes to show that applicant nos. 2 and 3 reached the place of incident to help the applicant no.1, which proves that applicant no.1 was present at the place of the incident. He also submits that all the other contentions relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it can not be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants. Lastly, he submits that the impugned summoning order has been passed after appraising the evidence available on the face of record, therefore the impugned order is perfectly, legal just and proper which calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction.

7. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' 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 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 ) Supreme (SC) 454; (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2020) Supreme (SC) 45; (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others (2020 ) Supreme (SC) 143, and (ix) M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315.

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 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.

9. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet as well as cognizance order and 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.

10. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Abhishek Singh ABHISHEK SINGH ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vs. Vijay Shankar Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No.44 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Pawara, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of A.C.J.M. IIIrd, Jaunpur.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.06.2020 at 12:50 hours an F.I.R. was lodged by Shivshankar Yadav against four named accused persons, who are applicant in the instant petition with the allegation that at 8:30 A.M. due to land and money dispute his distinct relative (Pattidar) abused and assaulted informant side, due to which Sangita Devi, Asha Devi, Manaj Kumar and Amul sustained serious injuries and after threatening for life the alleged accused persons ran away. After investigation, charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted on 04.07.2020 and learned Magistrate has summoned the accused persons by order dated 21.08.2020.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent, who have been falsely implicated in the instant case, wherein the learned trial Court without application of judicial mind in a printed proforma has taken cognizance vide order dated

12.08.2020 and summoned the applicants to face trial under Section under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C. He further submits that feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicants approached this Court by means of filing Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.1067 of 2021 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.02.2021 quashed the order dated

12.08.2020 and directed the court concerned to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law within a period of one month from that date. He further submits that after the aforesaid, the learned Magistrate in a routine manner has passed a fresh cognizance order dated 21.08.2021 without perusing the case diary. Hence the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that several civil and criminal disputes are pending between the parties, who are distinctively related each other and, therefore, in order to exert pressure upon the applicants the present F.I.R. has been lodged. He further submits that the Investigating officer has not recorded statements of the alleged injured witnesses. He next submits that applicant no.1, 3 and 4 were not present at the place of occurrence as applicant No.1 was at Maharastra, in order to earn his livelihood, on the date of the incident. Lastly, he submits that neither the names of the injured persons have been mentioned any where nor their statements have been recorded. Several other submission have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants has also been touched upon at length.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that nine persons namely, Shivshanker Yadav (Informant), Laxman Yadav (Constable), Dr. Sanjay Rai, Dr. A. K. Pandey, S.I. Maheshwardin Rajpoot, Sangita, Asha Devi, Aman Kumar and Amul have been examined including the injured persons. The injury reports of the injured persons have been annexed as Annexure No.2 to the application, which also go to show that the incident took place on 24.06.2020 and Sangita, Asha Devi, Aman and Amul sustained injuries. He further submits that as regards submission of counsel for the applicants that applicant no.1 was at Maharashtra on the date of the incident, para 17 of the affidavit itself goes to show that applicant nos. 2 and 3 reached the place of incident to help the applicant no.1, which proves that applicant no.1 was present at the place of the incident. He also submits that all the other contentions relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it can not be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants. Lastly, he submits that the impugned summoning order has been passed after appraising the evidence available on the face of record, therefore the impugned order is perfectly, legal just and proper which calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction.

7. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' 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 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 ) Supreme (SC) 454; (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2020) Supreme (SC) 45; (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others (2020 ) Supreme (SC) 143, and (ix) M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315.

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 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.

9. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet as well as cognizance order and 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.

10. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Abhishek Singh ABHISHEK SINGH ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad