Allahabad High Court
Munna Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 October, 2023
Bench: Gajendra Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:197304
Court No. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28277 of 2023
Applicant :- Munna Yadav And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Byas Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Dubey
Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the charge sheet dated 03.06.2022 submitted in case crime No.166 of 2020, under Sections 323, 324, 352, 354, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) and 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Ram Kola, District-Kushinagar as well as summoning order dated 23.03.2023.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants submits that as per material on record, no offence under the charging sections is made out against applicants. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in case of Sushil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another; 2023 0 Supreme (All) 584. It is further submitted that impugned charge-sheet as well as entire proceedings of aforesaid case crime number is nothing but an abuse of process of law, which are liable to be quashed by this Court.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and special statute/Act is inhibit in the instant case, as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed, at this stage.
5. So far as the arguments made by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State regarding maintainability of the present application U/2 482 Cr.P.C. are concerned, this Court has the occasion to go through the recent judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sri Gulam Mustafa Vs. The State of Karnataka and another; (2023) 5 S.C.R. 354. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order reads as under:-
Held: 1.1- The mere fact that the offence is covered under a ?special statute? would not inhibit this Court or the High Court from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code. [Para-34] [369-C-D].
?36. What is evincible from the extant case-law is that this Court has been consistent in interfering in such matters where purely civil disputes, more often than not, relating to land and/or money are given the colour of criminality, only for the purposes of exerting extra-judicial pressure on the party concerned, which, we reiterate, is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. In the present case, there is a huge, and quite frankly, unexplained delay of over 60 years in initiating dispute with regard to the ownership of the land in question, and the criminal case has been lodged only after failure to obtain relief in the civil suits, coupled with denial of relief in the interim therein to the respondent no.2/her family members. It is evident that resort was now being had to criminal proceedings which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is with ulterior motives, for oblique reasons and is a clear case of vengeance.
1.5.- The High Court fell in error in not invoking its wholesome power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the FIR. Accordingly, the Impugned Judgment, being untenable in law, is set aside. Consequent thereupon, the FIR, as also any proceedings emanating therefrom, insofar as they relate to the appellant, are quashed and set aside. [Para 39] [371-C-D]?
6. Further, from perusal of material available on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, before the court below and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.
7. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as charge sheet is refused.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submit that applicants may be permitted to move discharge application before the court concerned.
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the applicants will move a proper application for discharge through counsel within one month from today and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court which shall be considered and disposed of by the Trial Court in accordance with law within a period of two months.
10. Accordingly, the present application is disposed off.
Order Date :- 10.10.2023
Ashutosh
