Allahabad High Court
Harendra Mishra And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 February, 2021
Bench: J.J. Munir
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4482 of 2021
Applicant :- Harendra Mishra And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This application has been filed, seeking to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2854 of 2020, State of U.P. v. Harendra Mishra and Others (arising out of Case Crime No. 90 of 2019), under Sections 147, 148, 308, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Barhaj, District - Deoria, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria.
It is argued by Mr. Sandeep Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Dhiraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, that the incident in this case occurred on 08.04.2019, but the First Information Report was belatedly lodged on 19.04.2019. It is submitted that this long unexplained delay vitiates the prosecution, which ought to be quashed at the threshold. It is next submitted that though the incident is one dated 08.04.2019, the three injured underwent medical examination in the manner that one was examined on 15.04.2019, whereas the two others were examined on 19.04.2014, a delay that, in itself, vitiates the prosecution. It is further submitted that the allegation in the impugned proceedings is that the informant and his driver were battered, using sticks and iron rod, but the driver has sustained no injury. It is also said that the driver has submitted an affidavit that there was a sharp exchange of words between parties, but no assault or battery. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the First Information Report also alleges commission of an offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SC/ST Act"), and the crime was registered showing that offence, but after investigation, the allegation under the last mentioned Act was not found vindicated. It is urged on the basis of this result of the investigation that the entire prosecution case is ex-facie false, for if the offence under the SC/ST Act has not been found established, the other allegations must too be false. It is further argued that the applicant has sustained injuries and his medical examination was done on 09.04.2019. In fact, the first applicant and his sons were injured. The applicants attempted to lodge a First Information Report, but the same was not registered. As such, he has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is pending. It is on the basis of all these submissions that the applicants ask this Court to quash the impugned proceedings.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the motion to admit this application to hearing.
So far as the first submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, the submission about the delay in lodging the First Information Report is completely irrelevant to a plea for quashing the proceedings. Likewise, the second submission regarding the delay between the incident and the medico-legal examination is also not relevant in an application to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The third submission that the allegation by the informant that he and his driver were battered, but the driver received no injury and instead, has filed some affidavit disowning the informant's allegations, is also not a parameter on which criminal proceedings can be quashed. The fact that the First Information Report, when registered, alleged on offence under the SC/ST Act, which was not found to be vindicated during investigation, does not afford a ground to quash proceedings in exercise of our jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It must be remarked that even if this were a trial, the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply in India. Merely because the allegations in the First Information Report relating to an offence under the SC/ST Act have not been found established during investigation, would not vitiate the prosecution. The last submission of learned counsel for the applicants that it is he who has sustained injuries along with his sons and has got a prompt medical examination done, but his First Information Report has not been registered so far, also does not lend any support to the plea for quashing the impugned proceedings. All the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants are absolutely irrelevant in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. The grounds on which proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be quashed, have been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426. The principles there have been elucidated and explained in reputed authorities to follow, which needs no mention. There is a further ground to be found inBabubhai vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2011 SC 2631 where, in some cases, the charge-sheet may be held vitiated because the investigation done is unfair, biased, unilateral and one-sided. That case too has not been made out here. What the applicants have urged before the Court can be grounds on which a bail plea can be pressed, or a defence raised at the trial, or grounds substantiated in an appeal from a judgment of conviction. None of the grounds urged by learned counsel for the applicants are those on which this application to quash proceedings can be maintained.
In the result, this application fails and stands rejected.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021
I. Batabyal
