Dismissed

Munsarim and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2019A482/40422/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the charge-sheet. The court held that the applicants concealed injury reports of minor sons, failed to come with clean hands, and that Section 482 power is unlikely to be exercised unless no cognizable offence is made out. Prima facie, the prosecution case reveals a cognizable offence.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed after finding that the applicants suppressed relevant injury reports and no grounds for quashing were made out.

Munsarim and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40422 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Munsarim And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shriprakash Shrivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants after service of copy of the same upon learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 10.05.2016 under sections 452, 498A, 354, 323, 325 & 506 IPC in Case No.1701 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.249 of 2016, Police Station Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushinagar.

¶8

The applicant No.1 is brother-in-law (Jeth) , applicant no.2 is husband and applicant no.3 is brother-in-law (Dewar) of the daughter of the opposite party no.2.

¶9

Filtering out unnecessary details, brief facts of the case are that from the wedlock of applicant no.2 and daughter of opposite party no.2 (Roshantara) and three childrens were born, who were at the time of incident in the year 2016 aged about thirteen years, eight years and seven years. Roshantara/the daughter of opposite party no.2 initiated a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the applicant no.2 alleging that since last 4-5 years, the applicant no.2 was not maintaining his wife and sons. On 09.03.2016, opposite party no.2 (father of Roshantara) lodged FIR against the applicants registered as Case Crime No.0249 of 2016, under sections 147, 452, 498A, 354, 308, 323 & 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushinagar, making allegation that on 09.03.2016 at about six o'clock the applicant no.2 alongwith applicant nos.1 & 3 in collusion with each other with common intention and object forcible entered into the house of the informant and with a view to commit murder of wife and sons of the applicant no.2, badly assaulted them, thereby they received multiple injuries. The investigating officer after investigation submitted charge-sheet dated 10.05.2016 against the applicants, on which the

¶10

magistrate concerned took cognizance on 12.05.2016. In the aforesaid background of the case, the applicants have challenged the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 10.05.2016 before this Court.

¶11

The opposite party no.2 has filed counter affidavit dated 23.05.2018. The applicants have filed rejoinder affidavit dated 25.07.2019 to the said counter affidavit dated 23.05.2018.

¶12

Assailing the impugned charge-sheet, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident dated 09.03.2016. None of the sections or I.P.C. which are mentioned in the charge-sheet have attracted in the present case. The applicants are law abiding persons having no criminal history. The injury report of Roshantara does not support the prosecution case and the investigation has not been done by the investigating officer in fair manner, therefore, chargesheet against the applicants are liable to be quashed.

¶13

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that in this case, the daughter of the opposite party no.2 (wife of applicant no.2) as well as Mausam Ara, Saif Ansari and Kaif Ansari (sons of applicant no.2) are injured. The applicants have filed injury report of only Roshantara, appended as Annexure No.3 to the application, which indicate that seven multiple injuries have been received by the injured Roshantara. It is submitted that the injury reports of other injured persons have been concealed by the applicants and have not filed only with a view to mislead the Court. The injury report of other injured persons namely Mausam Ara, Saif Ansari and Kaif Ansari have been brought on record by the opposite party no.2 alongwith counter affidavit. From perusal of these injury reports, it is apparent that all the injured persons, who are minor sons of the applicant no.2 have received multiple injury and as per the opinion of the doctor in the injury reports, injuries have been caused by hard and blunt object. Further submission is that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record of the case, prima-facie cognizable offence is disclosed, therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that the applicants have not come up with clean hands before this Court and have suppressed the relevant facts and injury reports of Mausam Ara, Saif Ansari and Kaif Ansari, which has been brought on record by the opposite party no.2 alongwith the counter affidavit. Four

¶15

persons have received injuries in this case. The injury reports corroborating the prosecution version. Learned counsel for the applicants raised several factual disputes. It is well settled by the Apex Court that the appreciation of evidence is function of the trial court and at pre-trial stage, the defence of the applicants cannot be seen at this stage. It is also well settled by the Apex Court that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used in a rare of rare case, in such case where on accepting the contents of the prosecution case as it is, taking the same in their entirety, no cognizable offence is made out.

¶16

I find no good ground to interfere in the matter.

¶17

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 13.3.2019 SKD

Munsarim and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munsarim and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashu Ram and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rahul Vs State of Up and Another

masuk ali and 3 others Vs state of up and another

Kamlesh Vs State of U.P.

Mohan @ Mohan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shivang Gupta Vs State of U.P.