Allahabad High Court
Pramod Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 October, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192684
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27032 of 2023
Applicant :- Pramod Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Maneesh Kumar,Naveen Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Yadav
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1, Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the charge-sheet dated 14.12.2021, cognizance/summoning order dated 12.01.2023 and proceedings of criminal case no. 114 of 2023 (State vs. Pramod Kumar) arising out of case crime no. 124 of 2021, under Sections 325, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Manikpur, District Chitrakoot pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Chitrakoot.
The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the opposite party no. 2 lodged a first information report on 22.11.2021 for the offence under Sections 325, 323, 504 I.P.C. against the applicant making allegation inter-alia that on 27.09.2021, accused-applicant Pramod who is his younger brother came to his house and started abusing and assaulting his wife Smt. Sushma Devi by stick and kicks whereby she received injuries. After culmination of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant on 14.12.2021, on which the learned Magistrate concerned took cognizance and summoned the applicant vide order dated 12.01.2023 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present application.
The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that prior to lodging F.I.R. of this case, the proceedings under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was initiated by the applicant against his brother/opposite party no. 2, which has been registered as Computerized no. T202207190301593 and is pending before the court of S.D.M Manipur, Chitrakoot, therefore, false F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. No offence is made out against the applicant.
Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 refuting the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant submitted that upon perusal of F.I.R. and on the basis of the allegations made therein as well as material against the applicant, as per prosecution case, the cognizable offence against the applicant is made out. The criminal proceedings against the applicant cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. Hence this application is liable to be dismissed.
During the course of argument, applicant has expressed his willingness for settlement of dispute with the opposite party no. 2 by way of mediation but the opposite party no. 2 is not ready for settlement.
Having examined the matter in its totality, I find that the allegation of assault has been levelled against the applicant which is corroborated from the injury report of Sushma Devi (wife of opposite party no. 2) as she has received a fracture also on her left knee. 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 to 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.
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 applicant in this case, the cognizable offence is made out. 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 applicant through the instant application is hereby refused.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.10.2023
Saurabh
