Allahabad High Court
Brajesh Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 October, 2019
Author: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37931 of 2019 Applicant :- Brajesh Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Tiwari,Adya Prasad Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of order dated 27.3.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.2, Ghaziabad as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.6772 of 2015 (State Vs. Pushpendra Tiwari and others) arising out of Case Crime No.1353 of 2014, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Indrapuram, District- Ghaziabad.
Heard applicant's counsel and learned AGA for the State. Perused the record.
It has been made to appear by the counsel that the trial court while passing its order dated 27.03.2019 in Criminal Case No.6772 of 2015 (State Vs. Pushpendra Tiwari and others), under sections 420, 467, 468,471 I.P.C., Police Station- Indrapuram, District- Ghaziabad arising out of case crime no.1353 of 2014 has passed certain strictures and has referred the matter to S.S.P., Ghaziabad for taking action against the applicant, as the conduct of the investigating officer has been found lackadaisical and the manner in which he collected evidence was found full of infirmities. But the counsel has been fair enough to admit that after recording of the conviction in the case there is an appeal that has already been filed on behalf of accused which is pending in the concerned appellate court. In such circumstances, this Court has a serious doubt about the appropriateness of filing the present application and invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. Whether the conduct of the I.O. was unfair or not, whether the I.O. acted fairly or did not or whether the manner in which the investigation was performed was to be approved or deserves castigation, are all matters which are inextricably intertwined with the merits of the case. The concerned appellate court is necessarily to dwell into all these aspects and arrive at it own conclusion. It does not appear to be a correct forum where the aforesaid relief ought to have been sought. Any finding that may be given by this Court may fall in to be incongruous with the findings that might be recorded by the appellate court after hearing all the matter in appeal. Any observation made by this Court in that regard would be likely at any rate to cause prejudice either to prosecution or to accused and may adversely influence dispassionate independent view of the lower appellate court with regard to the issues which are necessarily involved in the hearing of the appeal. A parallel proceeding cannot be drawn even if they are with regard to the limited aspect of the matter. This Court therefore, in such circumstances, does not deem it appropriate to exercise its inherent jurisdiction with regard to the matter where a regular statutory appeal has already been filed. This application therefore cannot be allowed.
However, it may be observed that if applicant feels any urgency of the matter, it can very well approach the lower appellate court and seek proper redress at that stage at the right forum where it can express its grievance.
With the aforesaid observations this application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.10.2019 shiv