Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 July, 2019
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25036 of 2019
Applicant :- Om Prakash
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Muktesh Kumar Singh,Ramkripal Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri A.D. Misra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 30.10.2018, under Sections 323, 325, 452 IPC, in Case No.1363 of 2019 (State Vs. Om Prakash and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0290 of 2018, P.S. Chandauli, District Chandauli pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party no.2 in the present case. Earlier an FIR was lodged by applicants against opposite party no.2 and other family members under Sections 147, 325, 452, 504 and 506 IPC being Case Crime No. 197 of 2018, in which the occurrence had taken place on 1.7.2018 but thereafter, the opposite party no.2 has initiated this false case against applicant and his entire family members showing the date of occurrence to be 5.7.2018 and has got this FIR lodged by moving an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. It is next argued that in the injury memo of Pradeep Kumar Yadav, the fracture is shown to have been caused of fourth metacarpal which is a false report regarding which, he had made a request to C.M.O. Chandauli for constituting a Medical Board. Thrice Board was constituted with a direction to the injured to appear before it but he did not appear to get himself examined. In this regard, the C.M.O. had also sent a letter to the opposite part no.2. Hence, the charge sheet needs to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet.
I have gone through the FIR. As per the FIR, the opposite party no.2 has been beaten up by the accused-applicant along with his companion after entering into his house and after the investigation the I.O. has submitted the charge sheet. The statement of witnesses recorded by the I.O. during investigation cannot be disbelieved at this stage, by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant would be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid-down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.7.2019
Neeraj
