Allahabad High Court

Ajeet And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 February, 2025

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17047
 
Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40226 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Ajeet And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
with
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40256 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Deshraj @ Deshraj Singh Panwar
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Singh,Sanjay Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Kumar Pandey,G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for applicants-Ajeet And Another in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 40226 of 2024 (Ajeet and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.

2. I have also heard Mr. Atul Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant-Deshraj @ Deshraj Singh Panwar, in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 40256 of 2023 (Deshraj @ Deshraj Singh Panwar Vs. State of U.P. and another), the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2.

3. Perused the record.

4. Applicants-Ajeet And Another have approached this Court by means of aforementioned application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

"It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and further be pleased to quash the judgment and order dated 15.10.2024 arising out of S.T. No- 1482 of 2018, New No-422 of 2024 in case crime No-184 of 2018 (State Vs. Ajeet and another's) under section 323, 504, 506, 452, 467, 468, 471, 420, 147, 148, 307 of I.P.C. Police Station Khoda, District Ghaziabad, Pending in the Court of Additional district and session judge Court No-16, Ghaziabad"

It is further be pleased to stay the further proceeding of S.T.No-1482 of 2018, New No-422 of 2024 in case crime No-184 of 2018 (State Vs. Ajeet and another's) under section 323, 504, 506, 452, 467, 468, 471, 420, 147, 148, 307 of I.P.C. Police Station -Khoda, District Ghaziabad, Pending in the Court of Additional district and session judge Court No-16, Ghaziabad" during the pendency of the instant case before this Hon'ble court, And/or to pass such other and further order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

5. Applicant-Deshraj @ Deshraj Singh Panwar has approached this Court by means of aforementioned application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

" It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 323 of 2023 (Ajeet Vs. Deshraj and another) u/s 420, 406 IPC, P.S. Koda, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad as well as quash/set-aside the impugned summoning order dated 18.08.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in complaint case no. 323 of 2023 (Ajeet Vs. Deshraj and another).

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the court below to permit the applicants to remain on previous bail bonds to secure the ends of justice so that justice be done; and/or to pass such other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

6. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred in between 07.04.2015 to 14.06.2017, a delayed FIR dated 10.10.2017 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2, Ajeet Singh in Criminal Misc. Application No. 40256 of 2023 and was registered as Case Crime No. 0533 of 2017 under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kheda, District-Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid FIR, two persons namely Deshraj and Rameshchandra were nominated as named accused.

7. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by Investigating Officer, during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that no offence as complained of is established. He accordingly submitted the final report/police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.

8. Thus feeling aggrieved by aforementioned police report, first informant filed a protest petition against the same. It is apposite to mention here that under the Code i.e. Cr.P.C., there is no provision regarding filing of a protest petition by the first informant against the police report. However, the same has now been provided for, by the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police And Another, (1985) 2 SCC 537.

9. After aforementioned protest petition was filed, Court below proceeded to consider the protest petition filed by the first informant in the light of material on record. Upon consideration of the material accompanying the police report, court below came to the conclusion that offence complained of is made out. Accordingly, the protest petition was allowed. It was thus considered by court below that the protest petition filed by first informant shall treated as a complaint and proceeded with as a complaint case. On date Complaint Case No. 323 of 2023 (Ajeet Vs. Deshraj and another) is pending consideration before court below.

10. It transpires from record of Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 40226 of 2024 that an F.I.R. dated 16.03.2018 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2, Dayawati (since expired) and was registered as Case Crime No. 0164 of 2018 under Sections 323, 452, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kheda, District-Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons namely Ajeet, Sanjay @ Sanjeev and Manoj have been nominated as named accused whereas some other unknown person has also been arraigned as an accused.

11. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by Investigating Officer, during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that offence complained of is prima facie established against applicants. He accordingly submitted police report (charge sheet) dated 16.05.2018 in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. whereby two of the named accused namely Ajeet and Sanjeev have been charge sheeted under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 467, 468, 471, 420, 147, 148, 325, 307 I.P.C.

12. Having heard Mr. Atul Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 40256 of 2023, the learned A.G.A. for State, Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that court below has summoned the applicant on the ground that in spite of agreement before Station House Officer to return the amount of earnest money taken by the applicant, the same has neither been returned nor the sale deed has been executed, therefore prima facie an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is made out against applicant.

13. In view of above, no interference is warranted by this Court in Application U/S 482 CR.P.C. No. 40256 of 2023.

14. It is accordingly dismissed.

15. Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for applicants in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 40226 of 2024 primarily argued that court below has rejected the discharge application filed by applicant without adverting to the papers accompanying the police report diligently. To buttress his submission, he has invited the attention of Court to the medical prescription of the injured Shiv Kumar, copy of which is on record at page 31 of the paper book, wherein injured has himself stated that he slipped from the stares. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicants that no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. can be said to be made out against applicants. On the above conspectus, he therefore submits that court below while exercising it's jurisdiction under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has not dealt with the facts and circumstances of the case or the papers accompanying the police report. As such, the order impugned has been passed by court below in a casual and caviler fashion, which cannot be sustained. As such, present application is liable to be allowed by this Court.

16. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed this application. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record at this stage.

17. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record this Court finds that the order impugned passed by court below cannot be sustained inasmuch as court below has proceeded to reject the discharge application filed by applicant without adverting to the papers accompanying the police report. The same is in clear violation of law laid down by Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and another (2022) 15 SCC 720.

18. In view of above, Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 40226 of 2024 (Ajeet and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

19. It is accordingly allowed.

20. The order impugned dated 15.10.2024 passed by Additional District and Session judge, Court No-16, Ghaziabad in S.T. No- 1482 of 2018, New No-422 of 2024 (State Vs. Ajeet and another) under sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 467, 468, 471, 420, 147, 148, 307 of I.P.C. Police Station Khoda, District Ghaziabad is hereby set aside.

21. The concerned court shall re-decide the discharge application filed by applicants in accordance with law and in the light of observations made herein above.

Order Date :- 6.2.2025