Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Pratap Singh And Anr. vs The State Of U.P And Ors. on 13 March, 2014
Author: Bala Krishna Narayana
Bench: Bala Krishna Narayana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 21 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1753 of 2013 Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh And Anr. Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar Misra,Arti Ganguly Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Dinesh Kumar Sharma,Shushil Kumar Sharma Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
List has been revised. None is present on behalf of the opposite party no. 3 to press this application.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Smt. Madhulika Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The applicants, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet no. 22 of 2012, dated 03.03.2013 laid in Case Crime no. 33 of 2013, under Sections 323, 504 and 325 I.P.C., P.S. Raunahi, district- Faizabad and registered as Case no. 33 of 2013, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M-IVth, Faizabad.
The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a non-cognizable report lodged by the opposite party no. 3, Ashutosh Pratap Singh at police station- Raunahi, district- Faizabad, N.C.R. No. 12 of 2013 was registered against the applicants. The matter was investigated in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. and police report was submitted showing commission of offences under Sections 323, 504 and 325 I.P.C. by the applicants. The said charge sheet was registered as Case no. 33 of 2013 before the A.C.J.M-IVth, Faizabad. The concerned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the applicants to face trial for the aforesaid offences.
The undisputed facts of the case as would be evident from the perusal of the N.C.R. as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation are that on 21.01.2013 at about 9:45 a.m. the applicants had allegedly attacked the complainant/ opposite party no. 3 causing serious injuries to him. The complainant got his injuries examined at C.H.C., Shohawa, district- Faizabad. He was advised X-ray. X-ray was conducted on the same date at about 2:45 p.m. The X-ray report revealed proximal fracture of index finger. The injury report and the X-ray reports have been filed as Annexure nos. 3 and 4.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the date on which the occurrence had allegedly taken place was sunday and on that date the complainant / opposite party no. 3 was required to report at Primary Health Centre, Mubarakpur village for participating in the National Pulse Polio Program and remained there for the whole day. He next submitted that during investigation the applicants moved the concerned authority under The Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to RTI) Act on 02.02.2014 seeking information whether the injured complainant, Ashutosh Pratap Singh was on Pulse Polio duty on 21.01.2013 or not and the reply furnished was in the affirmative, certifying that the complainant, Ashutosh Pratap Singh was on duty at Primary Health Centre, Mubarakpur village between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The written information so received in this regard by the applicants under the R.T.I. Act, 2005 was made available by them to the Investigating Officer, yet the applicants were illegally charge sheeted. The distance between village Mubarakpur and the place of occurrence is about 20 km.
Learned counsel for the applicants next submitted that the applicant no. 1 is a government employee who had been inducted into the government service just a few days before lodging of the N.C.R. by the opposite party no. 3 against him and the applicant no. 2. is a qualified computer engineer and the impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated by the opposite party no. 3 with the malafide intention for depriving the applicant no. 1 of his government job and to ensure that the applicant no. 2 does not get a proper placement on account of their being accused in a criminal case. Advancing his submissions further he submitted that the impugned criminal proceedings which are tainted with malafide can not be permitted to continue any further against the applicants as the same shall amount to abuse of process of law.
Learned counsel for the applicants also drew the attention of the Court to paragraph 12 of the of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2 in this case and submitted that in the said paragraph the complainant / opposite party no. 3, Ashutosh Pratap Singh has taken a complete somersault from the case as stated by him in the F.I.R. and has stated that on the date of occurrence he was at village Mubarakpur in connection with the Pulse Polio duty and infact it was his real brother who was attacked and injured by the applicants and when he got the information thereof he rushed from Mubarakpur to his village and lodged the N.C.R. against the applicants. He further submitted that in view of the aforesaid averments made by the respondent no. 2 on oath before this Court neither any reliance can be placed on the facts stated by the opposite party no. 2 in the N.C.R. nor any credence can be attached to his injury, x-Ray reports and the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation on the basis of which the applicants have been charge sheeted and are being prosecuted as neither the respondent no. 2 nor the witnesses whose statements were recorded during investigation have come with the case that it was the brother of the respondent no. 3, who was assaulted by the applicants and had received injuries in the occurrence. Further there is no injury report of brother of the respondent no. 2 on the record.
Learned counsel for the applicants lastly submitted that there is no explanation in the counter affidavit for the inherent contradictions in the facts spelt out in the first information report and as stated by the witnesses in their statements recorded during investigation and the facts averred by the respondent no. 3 in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the prosecution of the applicants is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions advanced. However, she has not been able to come with any explanation with regard to the glaring discrepancies in the facts stated in the N.C.R. and those averred by the respondent no. 3 in the counter affidavit filed by him before this Court in this case.
After having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties present and perused the material brought on record, as well as the averments made by the respondent no. 3 in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed by him before this Court, I find that there is force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants. A perusal of the N.C.R. shows that the specific case of the prosecution was that the applicants had assaulted the complainant / opposite party no. 3, Ashutosh Pratap Singh on 21.02.2013 at about 9:45 a.m. causing grave injuries to him. The injury and the x-Ray reports on the record are those of Ashutosh Pratap Singh. However, it appears upon being confronted with the information furnished under the R.T.I. Act on the application of the applicants which totally falsified the prosecution case, the complainant / opposite party no. 3, Ashutosh Pratap Singh realized that there was no likelihood of the conviction of the applicants on the basis of the prosecution case as spelt out in the N.C.R. and he in an attempt to salvage the prosecution case has come up with the entirely different version of the occurrence in the counter affidavit filed by him before this Court alleging that it was his brother who was attacked and injured by the applicants in the alleged incident and thereby demolishing the prosecution case totally.
In view of the irreconcilable stands taken by the opposite party no. 3 in the N.C.R. and in the counter affidavit filed by him in this case, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned criminal proceedings are apparently founded upon concocted allegations. The prosecution's stand totally falsified from the information furnished under the R.T.I. which is a document of unimpeachable credibility as well as the facts stated by the opposite party no. 3 in his counter affidavit. Accordingly the proseuction of the applicants in the present case is liable to be quashed as there is no likelihood of their conviction on the basis of the material on record.
Accordingly this application is allowed. The prosecution of the applicants in the aforesaid case is quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 13.3.2014 Faridul