Ashok Vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 76

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 913 of 2020

Applicant :- Ashok Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 22.10.2019 passed by A.C.J.M./Senior Division-V, Mathura as well as entire proceedings of Case No.10348 of 2019 (State Vs. Ashok), arising out of Case Crime No.436 of 2017, under Sections 307, 324, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C., Police Station Refinery, District Mathura, pending in the court of A.C.J.M./Senior Division-V, Mathura.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR has been lodged by informant against applicant, co-accused Sonu and two unknown persons with the allegation that on 07.11.2017 at 09.33 p.m. the brother of informant Harish Kumar was standing before Katambh Vihar, in the meantime, one maruti car reached there and applicant, co-accused Sonu and two other persons came down from the car and fired upon him, but he managed to save himself and has not sustained fire arm injury, thereafter the accused started beating with lathi, iron pipe and ballam. Thereafter, Hari Singh and Jai Pal came there who saved him and FIR has been lodged against the applicant and others by the informant who is brother of injured Harish. The injuries of the injured Harish Kumar was examined by the doctor on 07.11.2017 at about 11.10 p.m. and supplementary report was prepared by doctor on 20.11.2017. Thereafter statement of injured was recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 14.12.2017 in which he has stated that there was enmity with Sonu, but there is no specific allegation as to who has assaulted him. The injuries of the injured Harish Kumar was examined by panel of doctor and they found no injury on abdomen and injuries are not dangerous to life. After investigation Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out and charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant on 13.07.2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. before the court of A.C.J.M./Sr. Divn. V, Mathura. Thereafter the learned Magistrate has altered the case and summoned the applicant

¶8

under Sections 307, 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. on 22.10.2019. It is further submitted that the court below, without taking into consideration the injury report of the injured as well as the report submitted by the medical board, has summoned the applicant in casual manner. The present case is an abuse of process of court and law. It is lastly submitted that the Apex Court has already held that summoning order of the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and law applicable on the subject. The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. In support of his case, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the this Court in the case of A.B. Godrej & Another Vs. Chief Judicial Magistrate Etawah and others (Application U/S 482 No. 2108 of 2013, decided on 23rd April, 2019 and Ram Nagina Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. (Application U/S 482 No. 5381 of 2002, decided on 30th July, 2019) . Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, submits that the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant by stating that all the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of the Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in 2019 AIR (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in 2019 Supreme (SC) 1152 .

¶10

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

¶11

This Court finds that the court below has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable

¶12

to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.

¶13

Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (i) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose reported in AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (ii) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker reported in AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (iii) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi reported in 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.

¶14

The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi reported in 1976 3 SCC 736 . The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.

¶15

Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.

¶16

The submissions made by the applicant's counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately 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. 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

¶17

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 them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

¶18

The prayer for quashing the charge-sheet or the proceedings is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.

¶19

However, it is observed that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the accused may appear before the court below and apply for bail within two months from today. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application on the same day, if possible, keeping in view the observations made by the Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and also in view of the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) . It is also provided that if the applicant moves an application for discharge before the Court below within two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within a period of seven weeks from the date making of discharge application.

¶20

For a period of two months from today, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid criminal case.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.1.2020 Anand Sri./-

Ashok v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Manoj Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shubham Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Rathi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Indresh Raja Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Kumar Jatav and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another