Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Kumar@ Tulsi Gautam And 2 ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 17 July, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:141116
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24150 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar@ Tulsi Gautam And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Awadhesh Prasad
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no. 1, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the charge-sheet dated 26.02.2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 422 of 2022, summoning order dated 24.04.2023 and proceedings of case no. 355/IX/23 (State vs. Swati Gautam and others), under Sections 452, 380, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Atarra, District Banda, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Atarra.
As per the prosecution case in brief, opposite party no. 4 lodged an F.I.R. on 11.11.2022 for the offence under Sections 452, 380, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. against the applicants alleging inter-alia that her marriage was solemnized with Ravendra Kumar, who died in an accident on 18.05.2019. Thereafter her elder brother-in-law also met with an accident on 03.11.2019 and on account of serious injuries, he is in coma. Thereafter, her father-in-law also died on 20.04.2022 and her mother-in-law is mentally retarded woman and taking the benefit of the situation of her family, her sister-in-law Swati Gautam along with her husband Krishnakant Gautam and father-in-law Rajendra Kumar @ Tulsi Gautam came to her house and took out a sum of Rs. 6 lac from the safe as well as ornaments of 200 grams of gold and 5 kg of silver as well as other house hold articles. After culmination of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused persons on which, the concerned court below took cognizance and summoned them vide order dated 24.04.2023.
The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant no. 3 is sister-in-law of the opposite party no. 4. The applicant no. 2 is husband of applicant no. 3 and applicant no. 1 is father-in-law of applicant no. 3. They have no concern with the family members of opposite party no. 4. Since the applicant no. 3 took her mother to her house, therefore, the opposite party no. 4 on being annoyed lodged an F.I.R. on false and concocted allegations. It is also submitted that there is no recovery of any money or ornaments from the possession of the applicants. The allegation of assault of the opposite party no. 4 against the applicants is also false, hence, no offence is made out against the applicants. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned charge-sheet, summoning order as well as proceedings against the applicants is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 4 opposed the prayer of the applicants and submits that from perusal of F.I.R. and on the basis of the allegations made therein as well as material against the applicants, 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.
Having examined the matter in its totality, I find that during investigation, opposite party no. 4 was examined and two injuries were found on her body in the nature of pain. The opposite party no. 4 and Madhu Pandey who is sister-in-law (jethani) of the opposite party no. 4, in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has supported the prosecution case and also disclosed that the opposite party no. 4 tried her best to evict them and on making resistance, they were beaten by kicks and fists. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. 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 an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is well 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 First Information Report or charge-sheet 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. 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. The applicants have an alternative statutory remedy of moving discharge application at the appropriate stage.
At the stage of taking cognizance of the case and 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.
This Court does not find that this case fall in a 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.
The relief as sought by the applicants through the instant application is hereby refused.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.7.2023
Saurabh
