Allahabad High Court
Rita Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 April, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6205 of 2023
Applicant :- Rita Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Manish Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Smt. Sandhya Jaiswal,Vinod Kumar,Vipul Kumar Jaiswal
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Vipul Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the informant, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 26.08.2022 and cognizance/summoning order dated 20.10.2022 passed in Case Crime No.0074 of 2022, under Sections 384, 504, 506, 507 I.P.C., Police Station-Kaushambi, District-Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Ghaziabad.
Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 through an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 30.01.2022 at about 17:16 hrs, under Sections 384, 504, 506, 507 IPC, which was registered as Case Crime No.74 of 2022 against the applicant with the allegations that the applicant has taken money and other materials as detailed in the FIR from opposite party no.2. It has also been alleged that the applicant under the garb of running an NGO, has exploited opposite party no.2 and has extracted money and other materials. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants. Thus, challenging the aforesaid charge sheet, the present case has been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as she has not taken any money from the opposite party no.2. Rather the opposite party no.2 had tried to sexually exploit the applicant for which an FIR has been lodged on 26.02.2022 through an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. Subsequently, as a counterblast, the present FIR has been lodged in order to harass the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has already been released on bail. No offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He, therefore, submits that the charge-sheet, summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court.
Per Contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that in order to exert pressure upon the opposite party no.2, the FIR has been lodged by the applicant subsequent to lodging of the FIR by the opposite party no.2, which itself goes to show that all efforts are being put by the applicant to exert pressure and extract money from the opposite party no.2. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
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 to 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 0 Supreme (SC) 454,
(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45,
(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 and lastly
(ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315.
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.
The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 26.08.2022 and cognizance/summoning order dated 20.10.2022 as well as 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.
The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 28.4.2023
Jitendra/-
