Allahabad High Court
Neeraj Yadav @ Neeraj And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 11 May, 2023
Bench: Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:32534
Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4636 of 2023
Applicant :- Neeraj Yadav @ Neeraj And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
1. Heard Sri Bipin Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Alok Saran, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 29.02.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Lucknow in Case No.15222 of 2020 titled as State of U.P. vs. Rajendra Yadav and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. as well as charge sheet dated 18.05.2019 arising out of Case Crime No.64 of 2019, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Gosainganj, District Lucknow and the entire proceeding of aforesaid Case No.15222 of 2020.
3. 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.
4. His further submission is that the instant first information report bearing No.64 of 2019, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Gosainganj, District Lucknow came to be lodged on the basis of false facts and in retaliation of a first information report bearing No.62 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Gosainganj, District Lucknow, which was lodged by one, Rajendra, who is acquainted with the present accused/ applicants, against eight named accused persons including the first informant of the present case.
5. His next submission is that the purpose of any investigation is to elicit truth. The investigation needs to be fair and impartial. However, in this case, the investigation was conducted in a casual and routine manner. Therefore, charge sheet came to be laid against the present accused/ applicants without collecting credible evidence in respect of complicity of the present accused/ applicants and without collecting any evidence, which attracts ingredient of Section 308 I.P.C.
6. In order to buttress his aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon a judgment of Madras High Court in Krishna Pannadi vs. Emperor reported in AIR 1930 MADRAS 190 as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathi Lal vs. State of U.P. reported in AIRONLINE 1988 SC 129, Sudhir and others vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2001 SC 826 and State of M.P. vs. Mishrilal (dead) and others reported in 2003 CRI. L. J. 2312.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. His next submission with vehemence is that that as charge sheet in this case has already been submitted and cognizance of the case has already been taken. Therefore, the judgments referred aforesaid by the learned counsel for the accused/ applicants are not applicable in the facts of this case and are distinguishable.
11. Thus, in view of aforesaid, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
12. 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 applicants, 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.
13. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the impugned charge sheet as well as impugned summoning order and the entire proceedings 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.
14. Even otherwise, the applicants shall have an opportunity at the appropriate stage to move an application for discharge taking therein all the pleas factual and legal which may be available to them, in accordance.
15. In case, such an application is moved before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court shall dispose of the same by a speaking and reasoned order strictly, in accordance with law.
16. It is also needless to mention that if the applicants, namely, Neeraj Yadav @ Neeraj, Naurang Yadav and Ramchandra Yadav apply for grant of bail, the learned trial court concerned 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 reported in MANU/SC/1024/2021 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 233 and also having regard to the fact that one, Rajendra, who is acquainted with the present accused/ applicants, has also lodged a first information report in respect of the alleged incident against eight named accused persons including the first informant of the present case.
17. With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is finally disposed of.
(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)
Order Date :- 11.5.2023
cks/-
