Allahabad High Court
Ramu And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 July, 2022
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 80 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6849 of 2022 Applicant :- Ramu And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge-sheet dated 25.05.2019 submitted in Case Crime No.150 of 2019, under sections 336, 308, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Madnapur, District- Shahjahanpur, the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 01.10.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Shahjahanpur in consequential Case No. 509 of 2021 (State vs. Ramu and Others) arising out of aforementioned case crime number as well as entire proceedings of aforementioned case, now pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Shahjahanpur.
Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. As such, applicants are being falsely prosecuted in aforementioned case crime number. It is then contended that no motive can be attached to the applicants for committing the alleged crime. It is lastly contended that court below has summoned the applicants by passing the cognizance taking order/summoning order dated 01.10.2019 on printed proforma. It is thus urged that court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction with due diligence. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that present application is liable to be allowed.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. contends that in the case of direct evidence, motive has no role to play. It is then contended that after the submission of police report in terms of section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the nature of order which is required to be pass, now stands settled to the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, A.I.R. 2019 Supreme Court 2499, wherein following has been observed in paragraph-37 of the judgement :-
"37. For issuance of process against the accused, it has to be seen only whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of issuance of process, the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of the materials on record. The Court must apply its mind to the allegations in the charge sheet and the evidence produced and satisfy itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The Court is not to examine the merits and demerits of the case and not to determine the adequacy of the evidence for holding the accused guilty. The Court is also not required to embark upon the possible defences. Likewise, 'possible defences' need not be taken into consideration at the time of issuing process unless there is an ex- facie defence such as a legal bar or if in law the accused is not liable. [Vide Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2012) 11 SCC 465]"
Learned A.G.A. further submits that after registration of F.I.R. dated 18.03.2019, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of the statements of witnesses examined under section 161 Cr.P.C. and other material collected by him during the course of investigation, complicity of present applicants in the crime in question was prima facie found to be established. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet dated 25.05.2019. He therefore contends that it cannot be said at this stage that prosecution case is false or there is no material to support the prosecution case. On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A. submits that no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicants.
When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.
Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed defence of the applicant, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot appraise or appreciate evidence, as such an exercise can be undertaken only by trial court upon trial of above mentioned case. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283.
In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.7.2022 Saif