Allahabad High Court
Lalloo Ram @ Ramesh Chandra Yadav vs The State Of U.P. on 8 July, 2019
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 226 of 2009
Applicant :- Lalloo Ram @ Ramesh Chandra Yadav
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- S.H. Ibrahim, Neeraj Sahu
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate, Sunil Kumar Bajpai
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing the charge-sheet dated 28.06.2008 arising out of case crime no.91 of 2008 under sections 143, 504, 506 IPC and section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, P.S. Deva, District Barabanki as well as the order of summoning dated 07.11.2008 as also the non-bailable warrant dated 04.12.2008 including the further proceedings of the criminal case No.9559 of 2008 (State vs. Lallu Ram and others).
Brief facts of the case are that first information report was lodged by the complainant alleging therein that the complainant purchased a land from the person who belongs to 'Harijan' community and when he wants to do the agricultural work in the field, the petitioners came to the field and had given threat to the labourers not do the work in the field. First Information Report has been lodged and the investigation of the case proceeded and the investigating officer filed the charge -sheet before the court below and the court below has taken the cognizance in the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the proceeding, initiated on the basis of first information report lodged against the petitioners is nothing but a gross misuse of the process of the law and is a malice prosecution. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the first information report has been lodged only to settle the score as the wife of petitioner no.3 - Ram Pal has lodged a first information report against the son of complainant.
Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the said case and they have not committed any offence as alleged. In the first information report, the allegations made against the petitioners are not satisfied the ingredients of the commission of the offence punishable under section 143, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1)(X) SC/ST Act. There are verbal conversations between the labourers of the complainant and on that basis, the proceedings have been initiated. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that no date and time of the incident have been mentioned in the first information report. The police has filed the charge-sheet without proper investigation and the court below has taken the cognizance and issue summons without applying the judicial mind.
Per contra, learned AGA for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that after the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners and the court below found that a prima-facie case of commission of a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners and therefore, summoned the accused persons to face trial for the offences punishable under section 143, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1)(X) SC/ST Act. It has also been submitted that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is a disputed fact and it cannot be seen at this stage. He also submits that the petitioners failed to make any sufficient ground for invoking extraordinary power of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the charge-sheet and the entire proceedings of the criminal case.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The wife of petitioner no.3 has lodged a first information report against the son of complainant on 30.03.2007 alleging therein that the son of complainant has committed rape upon her. The police submitted the final report in the case and after filing of the protest application, the son of the complainant has been summoned. The initiation of the present proceedings arises out of the first information report lodged on 29.03.2008 i.e. after lodging of the First Information Report by the wife of petitioner no.3. The impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated by opposite party No. 2 with malicious intention for ulterior purposes in order to settle his personal score.
The Investigating Officer has also not conducted the fair investigation in collusion of the opposite party No. 2, and as such, he also did not discharge his duties as an independent Investigating Officer. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat an others, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 336 has held that :
"The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive. It is also the duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and harassment to any of the accused. The Investigating Officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness.
Not only fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. The investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner. Where non-interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere. In such a situation, it may be in the interest of justice that independent agency chosen by the High Court makes a fresh investigation."
In view of above, this Court is of the view that criminal proceedings against the petitioners by opposite party No. 2 is nothing but a malicious prosecution by the opposite party No. 2 and is a clear abuse of process of Court. Impugned summoning order dated 07.11.2008 is also not sustainable, as no offence is made out against the petitioners.
This Court under the facts and circumstances of this case, feels that it is the solemn duty of the Court to protect apparently an innocent person, not to be subjected to such frivolous prosecution on the basis of wholly untenable allegations and complaint, if criminal proceeding is allowed to go on, the same will tantamount to causing grave mis-carriage of justice, therefore in order to secure the ends of justice, the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the impugned charge-sheet dated 28.06.2008 arising out of case crime no.91 of 2008 under sections 143, 504, 506 IPC and section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, P.S. Deva, District Barabanki as well as the order of summoning dated 07.11.2008 as also the non-bailable warrant dated 04.12.2008 including the further proceedings of the criminal case No.9559 of 2008 (State vs. Lallu Ram and others) are hereby quashed
Consequently, the present petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 8.7.2019
VNP/-
