Allahabad High Court
Lekhraj Verma vs The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 15 September, 2023
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:59717
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3564 of 2017
Applicant :- Lekhraj Verma
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Siddhartha Sinha,Ajay Arya,Jitendra Pratap Singh,Ved Prakash Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Siddhartha Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed with the prayer to quash the proceeding of Case Crime No.58/2013 under Section 384 I.P.C., Police Station Itaunja, District Lucknow.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the alleged date of incident applicant was posted as constable in Police Station Itaunja, District Lucknow. He further submits that accident was taken place in between one Wagon-R and vehicle of the complainant and thereafter, they started quarreling, as a result, both the vehicle brought to the police station and the issue between the parties was resolved by way of compromise, but thereafter, on the basis of incorrect facts, F.I.R. in question was lodged with the allegation that he paid damages to the owner of the Wagon-R car in relation to the accident, even then he was not permitted to take away the vehicle from the Police Station, as he was being victimized by the applicant for the sake of money and thereafter, the F.I.R. in question was lodged. He further submits that no offence under Section 384 I.P.C. is made out and charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner. He further submits that as per the prosecution case, the alleged incident was taken place during the place of posting of the applicant but no any sanctioned order was passed by the competent authority, and court below has wrongly taken the cognizance. He further relied on the decision of Isaac Isanga Musumba & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2014) 15 SCC 357 and Shatrughan Singh Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh & Ors. in W.P.C.R. No.133 of 2017 vide judgment dated 7.9.2021 and requested for indulgence of this Court.
4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicant and submits that after detailed investigation, charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer, therefore, all these facts can be raised before the court below but he does not dispute this fact that as per the prosecution case, applicant was posted as constable and there was dispute in between the complainant as well as vehicle owner of one car for the reason of accident.
5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application as well as other enclosures and judgment relied by the learned counsel for the applicant as it is undisputed fact that applicant was deployed as constable and in his beet, an accident was taken place, between two cars, one owned by the applicant and Wagon-R and thereafter, both the vehicles were brought to the police station and after compromise both were allowed to go but on the basis of incorrect facts, F.I.R. was lodged. As there is no allegation of specific demand of money, general allegations have been levelled and it is also mentioned in the statement of the complainant that whether the amount was paid by him to the applicant or not, as it is well settled by the Apex Court that in the case of Isaac Isanga Musumba (supra) that in case, transaction of the amount is not completed then no case for extortion is made out, as it is also evident that no sanction was granted by the competent authority, in such circumstances, this Court is of the view that impugned proceeding is liable to be set aside.
6. In view of the above discussion, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and impugned proceeding is set aside.
Order Date :- 15.9.2023/Gaurav/-
