Allahabad High Court
Gajendra Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 August, 2021
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7242 of 2021
Applicant :- Gajendra Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Kashi Naresh Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Kashi Naresh Mishra, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge-sheet No.247 of 2020 dated 12.07.2020 submitted in Case Crime No.226 of 2020, under Sections- 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., Police Station- Jawan, District- Aligarh, Cognizance Taking Order dated 08.01.2021 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh upon aforesaid charge-sheet, as well as entire proceedings of consequential Case No.37 of 2021, (State Vs. Gajendra Singh and Others), under Sections- 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., Police Station- Jawan, District- Aligarh arising out of above-mentioned case crime number, and now pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Aligarh.
Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in above-mentioned case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. A trivial dispute between children of parties has now been dragged into criminal litigation. It is urged that present criminal proceedings have been initiated on account of an ulterior motive. Consequently, present criminal proceedings are not only malicious but also an abuse of process of Court. As a result, same are liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. contends that subsequent to F.I.R. dated 21.05.2020, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, Investigation Officer examined first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who have supported the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. In the incident which occurred on 21.05.2020, two persons, namely, Pooja Devi and Brajesh Kumar sustained injuries. Their injury reports are already on record, same have been annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit respectively. On the basis of material collected by Investigating Officer during course of the investigation, which is substantially adverse to applicants, Investigating Officer opined to submit a charge-sheet. Accordingly, charge-sheet dated 12.07.2020 has been submitted, whereby and whereunder all the named accused, that is applicants herein, have been charge-sheeted under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. It is thus submitted by learned A.G.A. that at this stage, it cannot be said that prosecution of applicants is false or there is no material to support the prosecution of applicants. Reliance is also placed upon paragraph- 37 of the judgment of Apex Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, A.I.R. 2019 Supreme Court 2499, wherein following has been observed. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein under:
"37. For issuance of process against the accused, it has to be seen only whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of issuance of process, the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of the materials on record. The Court must apply its mind to the allegations in the charge sheet and the evidence produced and satisfy itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The Court is not to examine the merits and demerits of the case and not to determine the adequacy of the evidence for holding the accused guilty. The Court is also not required to embark upon the possible defences. Likewise, 'possible defences' need not be taken into consideration at the time of issuing process unless there is an ex- facie defence such as a legal bar or if in law the accused is not liable. [Vide Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2012) 11 SCC 465]"
When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.
Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for Stateand upon perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed defence of the applicant, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot appraise or appreciate evidence to record a finding one way or the other. Such an exercise can be undertaken only by trial court upon trial of aforesaid case. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.8.2021
Saif
