Allahabad High Court
Vinay Tiwari @ Ankit Tiwari And 3 ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 August, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:174394
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28264 of 2023
Applicant :- Vinay Tiwari @ Ankit Tiwari And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ravikant Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 and perused the record.
2-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the summoning order dated 11.01.2022, Non-bailable warrant dated 06.06.2023 and proceedings of Criminal Complaint No.1229 of 2019 (Anant Singh Yadav Vs. Vinay Tiwari and others), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Jhansi, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.
3-Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint dated 17.05.2019 against the applicants for the alleged offence under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 147, 148, 307, 337, 338 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act alleging inter alia that on 14.03.2019 the accused applicants due to business rivalry came to his shop and assaulted his son-Jitendra Yadav. When he tried to save his son, they giving threat of life ran away. He gave an application on the same day to the Police to lodge F.I.R., but his report was not lodged. When the applicants came to know that efforts are being made by him to lodge the F.I.R., the accused persons again armed with country-made pistols and gun came to his place at about 9:35 pm and made indiscriminate firing. Son of the complainant dialed 100 and called the Police. They found the traces of cartridges on the walls. On the said complaint learned Magistrate after recording the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant and statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses summoned the applicants vide order dated 11.01.2022, which is subject matter of challenge in the present application.
4-Main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicants is that with regard to an incident dated 14.03.2019 F.I.R. was lodged by the applicant no.1 against the sons of opposite party no.2 on 14.03.2019 at 17:33 hours, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., in which applicant no.1 received injuries and after culmination of investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the sons of opposite party no.2 and they are facing trial. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 in order to settle his personal score and to mount pressure upon the applicants filed a complaint on 17.05.2019 on the false and concocted facts. It is also submitted that in fact no such incident took place as alleged by the prosecution. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned summoning order, N.B.W. and proceedings against the applicants are liable to be quashed by this Court.
5-Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State refuting the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants submitted that considering the allegations made in the complaint as well as statement of the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively, the cognizable offence against the applicants is made out. The criminal proceedings against the applicants cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. Hence this application is liable to be dismissed.
6-After having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record, I find that in the incident Jitendra Singh Yadav received injury. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. At the stage of summoning the accused, the court below is not required to go into the merit and demerit of the case. Genuineness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be even determined at the stage of summoning the accused.
7-This Court is of the view that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put to an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in complaint and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. Power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in court of law. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage, which can be more appropriately gone into by the trial court at the appropriate stage.
8-This Court does not find that this case fall in categories as recognized by the Apex Court for quashing the criminal proceeding of the trial court at pre-trial stage. Considering the facts, circumstances and nature of allegations against the applicants in this case, the cognizable offence is made out. At this stage it would not be appropriate to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. The impugned criminal proceeding under the facts of this case cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court.
9-The relief as sought by the applicants through the instant application is hereby refused.
10-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.8.2023
Kashifa
