Allahabad High Court
Kapil Kumar @ Kapil vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 March, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42244
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 193 of 2025
Applicant :- Kapil Kumar @ Kapil
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amir Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. List revised. None appears on behalf of the applicant. Learned A.G.A. is present. Perused the record.
2. The instant application has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 19.03.2023 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 27.03.2024 and the entire proceeding of Special Sessions Trial No.473 of 2024 (State vs. Gagan and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.24 of 2024, under Sections 147, 323, 336, 504 I.P.C. & Sections 3(2)Va of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Shikarpur, District-Bulandshahar, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bulandshahar.
3. Brief facts of the case as per the records; an FIR has been lodged on 25.01.2024 at 18:00 hours, under Sections 147, 323, 336, 504 I.P.C. & Sections 3(2)(va) S.C./S.T. Act, against 14 named accused persons with the allegations that on 22.01.2024, there was some rally in the village of opposite party no.2, which was peacefully crossed the Mohalla of the opposite party no.2. The alleged accused Shivam s/o Ajeet and Vivek s/o Devendra participated in the rally and they were returning on their motorcycle from the area of opposite party no.2, where they hit a puppy on which an objection was raised by Pushpendra s/o Vashi. Son of Subhash resident of Fattapur also reached there and abused and assaulted Pushpendra. Other persons also reached there and they have also committed marpeet and pelted stones at the house situated there. The persons who were involved in the aforesaid incident were named as Prashant s/o Anil, Abhishek s/o Rakesh, Gagan s/o Sanju, Kapil s/o Boby, Sallu s/o Harichandra, Kapil s/o Subhash, Chunna s/o Vijaypal, Avind s/o Prakash, Sanjay s/o Vradhtay, Banti s/o Lachhi and Chhotu s/o Mahendra. Therefore, the present FIR was lodged. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted on 19.03.2024 and applicant has been summoned 27.03.2024.
4. The grounds as taken in the application that Investigating Officer has illegally and arbitrarily investigated the matter and without there being any credible evidence has submitted the charge sheet wherein concerned Court has arbitrarily took cognizance and summoned the applicant to face trial. It has also been averred that false and concocted story has been build up to implicate the applicant. In paragraph-15 of the application, it has been averred that Ram Sobha Yatra/Rally was peacefully taken out in the village of opposite party no.2, where Shivam and Vivek, who were present at the rally, were returning on their motorcycle and met with an accident with a puppy in the locality of opposite party no.2, then opposite party no.2 and his real brother namely, Sikandar reached there along with others and committed marpeet with Sallu, Ankit and Subhash. When the applicant tried to resolve the dispute, the aforesaid persons also committed marpeet with the applicant. The applicant and others have sustained injuries and have been medically examined. Another ground has been taken in the application that Shivam has lodged the first information report against the opposite party no.2 and 25 named persons on 25.01.2025. Subsequently, the present FIR has been lodged on 25.01.2024 by opposite party no.2 against the applicant, under Sections 147, 323, 336, 504 I.P.C. & Sections 3(2)Va of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Shikarpur, Bulandshahar. Another ground taken is that applicant has tried to resolve the dispute with the other accused persons and opposite party no.2, therefore, applicant has been falsely implicated due to village politics. Details about the education and examination for which the applicant has prepared, has also been given in the affidavit. Several other grounds have been taken on behalf of the applicant in the application to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per records, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon in the affidavit. Therefore, the summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse of the process of Court.
5. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that from the statements of charge sheet witnesses as well as part of case diary as provided which includes the authenticated video extracted as CD-4 under the Information Technology Act proves the involvement of the applicant in the said incident. He further submits that all the other grounds taken in the application by the learned counsel for the applicant relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicant.
6. I have considered the submission made by learned A.G.A. and have gone through the records of the present application.
7. This Court finds that the averments made in the application as well as grounds taken call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the grounds taken on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicant and trial is to yet to commence only on the grounds taken in the application that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 is not only malicious but also are abuse of the process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:-
(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866,
(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335,
(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,
(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122,
(v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682,
(vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454,
(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45,
(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 and lastly
(ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315.
8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of him as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
9. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.
10. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 19.3.2025
Rahul.
