Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 May, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70447
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5463 of 2025
Applicant :- Pradeep Yadav And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh,Vipin Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. The instant application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 05.07.2023 as well as cognizance order dated 08.11.2023 and the entire proceedings of Session Case No.1064/2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Pradeep Yadav & Others), arising out of Case Crime No.126/2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)Da, Dha, 3(2)5A of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Kalwari, District-Basti, pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Basti.
3. Brief facts of the case are; an FIR has been lodged by opposite party no.2 on 02.05.2023 at 20:21 hours, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)Da, Dha of S.C./S.T. Act, against four named accused, who are the applicants, with the allegations that on 30.04.2023 program regarding marriage of sister of the informant were going on, when the applicants came there and without any reasons started abusing the informant. They also assaulted him by lathi danda and chain using caste indicative words. 112 was dialed and police personnel came to intervene. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and the applicants have been summoned.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present case has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations due to ulterior motive. The informant had taken money from the applicants as averred in paragraph-17, which was required for shopping for the wedding of informant's sister. When the applicants went demanding the money back, in order to exert pressure the present FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. He further submits that there is two days delay in lodging the FIR without giving any plausible explanation for the same. The informant have been medically examined on 04.05.2023 and he has sustained injuries which are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. Therefore, from the medical also it cannot be said that any such incident took place. Several other grounds have been taken on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per records, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon in the affidavit. He further submits that the 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 submit that from the version of the FIR, medical as well as statements of charge sheet witnesses, prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. All the other contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be seen here. Even otherwise caste indicative words as specified have been used by the applicants against the opposite party no.2. From the medical also it is clear that duration of the injuries is 3 to 5 days old also goes to prove the incident.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties 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 submissions made 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 528 B.N.S.S. 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 submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant 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,
(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 aforesaid order or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them 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 entire criminal 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 :- 2.5.2025
Rahul.
