Dismissed

Munna and 6 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2019A482/8157/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet and cognizance order, the High Court held that a prima facie offence was made out considering injuries sustained by four victims. The Court ruled that disputed facts regarding the procurement of injury reports could not be considered at this stage, thus refusing the prayer to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Relief to quash the charge sheet and cognizance order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is refused.

Munna and 6 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8157 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Munna And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brahm Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 12.06.2018 as well as cognizance order dated 24.08.2018, Under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 336, 325, 308 I.P.C., P.S. Kapsethi, District-Varanasi pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Varanasi.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the applicants are false and against the evidence on record. In fact there was a dispute regarding the land between the parties concerned and applicants were beaten by the informant's side. Later on informant's side procured manipulated injury report in their favour and the Investigating Officer relying on the same submitted the charge sheet against the applicants. It is also submitted that the applicant no. 1 has moved an application before the District Magistrate for medical examination of the alleged injured afresh, on which Medical Board was constituted, therefore, the initiation of criminal proceedings under the facts and circumstances of the case against the applicants is bad in law and impugned charge sheet dated 12.06.2018 is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer by contending that in this case four persons have received injury namely Jai Prakash, Kumari, Sushila Devi and Jeeta Devi. As per injury report of injured Jai Prakash, injury no. 1 was found on his front of head and in the X-ray report of Jai Prakash fracture of metacarpal bone of left hand was also found. It is also submitted on behalf of State that considering the material evidence on record as on date, in support of allegation levelled by the informant against the applicant prima facie offence are made out against the applicants, therefore, the

¶9

charge sheet dated 12.06.2018 cannot be quashed.

¶10

After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the record, I find that whether the injury report has been procured by illegal means as alleged from the side of the applicants or not, is a disputed question of fact. The law is well settled that at this stage only prima facie case has to be seen.The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pretrial stage. Therefore, the charge sheet cannot be quashed at the pre trial stage in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which has to be exercised sparingly in such cases where accepting the prosecution case as it is, no prima facie offence is made out and Court finds that initiation of criminal proceeding in such a matter is a clear abuse of process of Court on the face on record itself. As on date, four persons have received injury in this case, injured Jai Prakash has received injury on vital part of his body on head. Fracture has also been found in the X- ray/Supplementary report. All the aforesaid injury reports and supplementary report appended alongwith application, which are on record.

¶11

In view of above, this Court does not find that this case fall in a categories as recognized by the Apex Court for quashing the criminal proceeding of the trial court at pre-trial stage. Considering the facts, circumstances and nature of allegations against the applicants in this case, the cognizable offence is made out. There is no manifest error of law in the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance order dated 24.08.2018. The impugned criminal proceeding under the facts of this case cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court. Hence, criminal proceeding against the applicants is not liable to be quashed. The relief as claimed by the applicants through this application is refused.

¶12

The application is accordingly dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 7.3.2019 AKT

Munna and 6 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna and 6 Others v. State of Up 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

Lekhpal @ Nekpal Vs State of U.P.

America @ Angad Vs State of U.P.

Ashwani Tripathi Vs State of U.P.

Yashveer and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Virnedra Vikram@Kunwar Virendra Vikram Vs State of Up and Another

Omveer Vs State of Up and Another