Allahabad High Court
Virendra @ Virendra Kumar And 4 ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 3 April, 2023
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3079 of 2023
Applicant :- Virendra @ Virendra Kumar And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jagdish Pratap Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the charge sheet no.01 dated 02.09.2021 filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 352, 332, 336, 188, 269, 270 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and Sections 2/3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 in Crime No.432 of 2020, Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow and also quashing the summoning order dated 08.02.2022, passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow in Criminal Case No.7543 of 2022 "State vs. Ricky Gupta @ Randeep Gupta and others" arising out of Crime No.432 of 2020, Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow and order dated 14.03.2023.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that accused/ applicants are innocent, who have been falsely implicated in this case due to some ulterior reason.
His further submission is that the content of the first information report does not disclose any ingredients, which are essential to constitute offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 307, 352, 332, 336, 188, 269, 270 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and Sections 2/3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984. He has also submitted that even during investigation, no credible evidence could be collected against the present accused/ applicants. Despite this fact, a charge sheet came to be laid mechanically under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 352, 332, 336, 188, 269, 270 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and Sections 2/3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 against the applicants.
His next submission is that the learned trial court, vide order dated 08.02.2022, proceeded to take cognizance under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 352, 332, 336, 188, 269, 270 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and Sections 2/3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 and consequently, the applicants came to be summoned to stand trial for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 352, 332, 336, 188, 269, 270 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and Sections 2/3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984.
Learned counsel for the applicants, on the basis of aforesaid submissions, has submitted that the present proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of this Court and a malicious prosecution too, which deserves to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently submitted that the law of quashing has been fairly settled in the celebrated judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866.
His further submission is that in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramveer Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2022 SC 2044 and Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 513, truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution version or defence version cannot be looked into at this stage. At such an early stage to rush of this Court for quashing itself is an abuse of process of this Court as the trial has not progressed substantially.
Thus, in view of aforesaid, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record including the first information report and the charge sheet laid against the present applicant, this Court is of considered view that in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), R.P. Kapur's case (supra), Ramveer Upadhyay's case (supra) and Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan's case (supra), no ground for quashing the instant proceeding exists.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the impugned charge sheet as well as impugned summoning order is refused as this Court does not find any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the proceedings under challenge. There is no abuse of court's process either.
However, it is needless to mention that if the applicants apply for grant of bail, the court below shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : MANU/SC/1024/2021.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.4.2023
Mahesh
