Allahabad High Court
Smt. Chhama Sharma And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 September, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ? Reserved On 03.09.2024 Delivered On 30.09.2024 Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:162929 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17905 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt. Chhama Sharma And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Farooq Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Kautilya Sharma, applicant-2 in person, the learned A.G.A. for State and Miss. Nikesh Chauhan, the first informant/opposite party-2, who has also appeared in person.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicants Smt. Chhama Sharma, Kautilya Sharma and Shivam, who are charge sheeted accused/mother, father and son, respectively have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the application & quash the cognizance/summoning order dated 10.04.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Baghpat as well as quash the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 2523 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 1165 of 2022, Under Section 307, 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C as well as Charge Sheet No. 178 of 2024 (Dated 13.03.2024) Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat (State Vs. Kautilya Sharma and others).
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the cognizance/summoning order dated 10.04.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Baghpat as well as quash the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 2523 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 1165 of 2022, Under Section 307, 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C as well as Charge Sheet No. 178 of 2024 (Dated 13.03.2024) Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat (State Vs. Kautilya Sharma and others) during the pendency of the present application. And/or pass such other and further order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 30.12.2022, a prompt F.I.R. dated 30.12.2022 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2 Miss. Nikesh Chauhan and was registered as Case Crime No. 1165 of 2022, Under Sections 506, 324, 323, 308, 504, 307, 354, 149, 147 I.P.C, Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat. In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons namely, Kautilya, wife of Kautilya and Shivam i.e. the present applicants have been nominated as named accused, whereas an unknown person has also been arraigned as an accused.
5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused along with an unknown person assaulted the sister of the first informant namely, Sudesh Chauhan on account of which she suffered injuries. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that the assault was committed with an intention to kill the injured Sudesh Chauhan.
6. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, injured Sudesh Chauhan was referred for Medico Legal examination. As per medico legal examination report dated 6.7.2022, the injured Sudesh Chauhan sustained following injuries:
(1) Incised wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over left side occipital region bone deep with complained of nausea diziness.. KUO (2) Swelling and pain left side shoulder.
(3) Complain of pain posterior part of left ear.
(4) Abrsion 3 cm x 1 cm over Rt knee joint (5) Linear abrasion 2 cm x 0.5 cm over medial aspect of mid left forearm.
(6) Complain of pain left elbow joint (7). Sweeling 3 cm x 0.2 cm over upper part of right buttock (8) Complain of bodyache
7. Subsequently, the x-ray of injured Miss. Sudesh Chauhan was performed. As per the supplementary medico legal report dated 9.1.2023, the doctor opined as follows:
"Supplementary Report Original MLPC of Sudesh Chandan D/o late Shree Krishan Kumar age about 38 years female R/o Mohalla Nayi Basti, Patti Chaudhran ps-Braut Dist- Baghpat at CHC Baghpat on 30.12.2022 at 4.35 pm with MLPC No. 1425/2022 In which injury NO.1 KVO and refer to radiologist for ct head expert opinion.
Patient went DCh Baghpat and done Ct Head with Lab serial No. 422212310025 and sample id- 4231025 on 31.12.2022 According to Ct report of DCh Baghpat Dr. Komal Sharma Rg No. 26699...
Expert- Soft tissue swelling in left occipital region.
No obvious cerebral parenchymal facal lesion or .. hemorrhage at present.
Hence injury no.1 is simple in nature."
8. Investigating Officer, thereafter, examined the first informant and other witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. i.e.
1. Nikesh Chauhan (informant) CD1 dated 31.12.2022
2.Victim Sudesh Chauhan CD. No. 6 dated 26.1.2023
3.Dr. Kamal Sharma
4. Dr. Mukesh Kumar (examined Sudesh Chauhan) C.D. No. 4 dated. 9.1.2023
5.Guruvachan (brother of informant and victim) CD. NO. 22 dated. 24.4.2023
6. Nishit Bhardawaj dated 30.12.2022. C.D. No. 46 (He also gave an affidavit in favour of Ashish Sharma regarding his absence at the time and place of occurrence).
7.Vijay Kumar Sharma dated 30.12.2022 C.D. No. 46 (He also gave an affidavit in favour of Ashish Sharma regarding his absence at the time and place of occurrence).
8. Chandra Dutt Sharma, C.D. No. 46 dated 30.12.2022 (He also gave an affidavit in favour of Ashish Sharma regarding his absence at the time and place of occurrence).
9. Ramesh Chandra, C.D. 47 dated 30.12.2022 (He also gave an affidavit in favour of Vinod Kumar regarding his absence at the time and place of occurrence).
10. Sanjay Sharma, C.D. 47 dated 30.12.2022 (He also gave an affidavit in favour of Vinod Kumar regarding his absence at the time and place of occurrence).
11. Bheem- C.D. 47 dated 30.12.2022 (He also gave an affidavit in favour of Vinod Kumar regarding his absence at the time and place of occurrence).
12.Dilshad, C.D. 47 dated 30.12.2022 (He also gave an affidavit in favour of Vinod Kumar regarding his absence at the time and place of occurrence).
9. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that offence complained of is prima facie established against named accused. He, therefore, opined to submit the charge sheet. Ultimately, Investigating Officer submitted the Police report/charge sheet dated 13.3.2024, whereby named accused Kautilya Sharma has been charge sheeted under sections 307, 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC, Smt. Kshma Sharma under sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Shivam Sharma under sections 307, 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC.
10. After aforementioned charge-sheet/police report was submitted, the Jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. took cognizance and simultaneously summoned the charge sheeted accused, vide Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 10.4.2024 passed in consequential Criminal Case No. 2523 of 2024 (State Vs. Smt. Chhama Sharma and others) under Sections 307, 323, 354, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Baghpat, District-Baghpat.
11. Thus feeling aggrieved by the charge sheet/police report dated 13.3.2024, submitted by Investigating Officer in Case Crime No. 1165 of 2022, Under Sections 307, 323, 354, 504 and 506 I.P.C, Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat, the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 10.4.2024, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in Criminal Case No. 2523 of 2024 (State Vs. Smt. Chhama Sharma and others) under sections 307, 323, 354, 504 and 506 I.P.C, Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned criminal case now pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, applicants who are charge sheeted accused have approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
12. Present application came up for admission on 25.6.2024 and this Court passed the following order:
"1. Court is pained as it is informed by applicant No.2 who is appearing in person that Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Advocate in this case has refused to appear before this Court. Even he has adviced him not to appear before this Court.
2. On request of this Court, said applicant in person has tried to call his counsel, however, he has not responded.
3. Supreme Court in various judgments have observed that even non-appearance of advocate is contrary to his solemn duty as affirmed by putting his signature on vakalatnama.
4. Since Court is sitting in vacation, therefore, an opportunity be granted to Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Advocate to appear on behalf of applicant on next date of listing.
5. Heard Kautilya Sharma, applicant no. 2 appearing in person and Ms. Nikesh Chauhan, opposite party no.2/complainant appearing in person.
6. Opposite party no.2 is granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit shall be filed by applicants within one week thereafter.
7. In case there is any threat to witnesses, they are at liberty to take recourse of Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
8. Learned AGA will file an affidavit disclosing material collected during investigation.
9. Both applicant no.2 and complainant are Advocates of District Court, Baghpat, therefore, they are advised to maintain peace and not to indulge in any criminal activity during pendency of this application.
9. Let this matter come up on 16.07.2024 as fresh before appropriate Bench. "
13. Subsequent to above order dated 25.6.2024, the learned A.G.A. has produced the entire case diary before the Court.
14. It has been urged on behalf of applicants that as per the material collected by the Investigating Officer, no offence under section 307 IPC is made out against applicant. With reference to the F.I.R. it is urged that the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. is not corroborated by the medical evidence. In short, the medical evidence does not support the ocular version of the occurrence.The medical evidence clearly belies the ocular version of the occurrence as unfolded in the F.I.R.
15. It was further contended that it is by now well settled that for an offence under section 307 IPC it is not the injury but the intention behind the occurrence i.e. to cause death, which is the determining factor. It is on account of above that a fine distinction exists between an offence under section 324 IPC and 307 IPC.
16. Even if the aforesaid principle is applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be said that the intention of the accused was to cause death of the injured as no such intention is maniefest from the record. In the absence of any injury much less grievous or fatal injury sustained by the injured, it cannot be conclusively concluded that there was an intention on the part of the accused/applicants to cause death of the injured Miss. Sudesh Chauhan.The submission is founded on the principle that the intention must be reflected by consequential action.
17. It was further contended that the intention to cause death has to be judged with reference to the material on record. Admittedly, in the F.I.R. giving rise to this application, two persons alleged to be clerks of advocates are also said to be involved in the crime in question. However, they have not been charge sheeted by the Investigating Officer. There is nothing on record to show that any protest petition was filed by the first informant against the police report dated 13.3.2024 (charge sheet) submitted by the Investigating Officer, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and another, 1985 SCC (2) 537. As such, it is evident that the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. was partly found to be untrue.
18. In the police report/charge-sheet dated 13.3.2024, following have been nominated as prosecution witnesses:
1. Miss Nikesh Chauhan
2.Injured Sudesh Chauhan
3.Doctor Kamal Sharma
4.Doctor Mukesh Kumar
5.Guruvachan
6.Nishit Bhartdwaj
7.Vijay Kumar Sharma
8.Chandradutt Sharma
9. Rameshchandra
10.Sanjay Sharma
11.Bheem
12.Dilshad
13.Ajay Kumar
14.Pooja Rani
15.Madhurshyam-Investigating Officer
16.Sanjeev Kumar Yadav- Investigating Officer
19. It was then contended that perusal of the statement of injured Sudesh Chauhan (C.D. parcha no.6) recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. will go to show that the injured in her statement has stated that named accused along with two clerks assaulted her with the weapons in their hands with an intention to kill her. However, except for an incised wound, measuring 0.5 cm x .0.5 cm, no other stabbed injury or incised wound was sustained by the injured. There is no recital in her statement as to who caused the injury sustained by her. Even the manner of assault has not been detailed in her statement. As such, it cannot be gathered from the statement of the injured that there was an intention with the accused/applicants to cause death of injured.
20. Reference was then made to the statement of the first informant Miss. Nikesh Chauhan. On the basis of above, it was vehemently urged by applicant-2 that the medical evidence does not support the ocular version of the occurrence as unfolded in the F.I.R. Admittedly, the first informant has lodged the F.I.R. giving rise to present criminal proceedings. The truthfulness of the prosecution case is further exposed from the fact that the two clerks, who were also implicated in the crime in question with specific role of assault upon the injured with Danda was not found to be true by the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, they were exculpated. As such, no intention to cause the murder can be gathered from the statement of first informant.
21. Another witness Gurbachan has simply supported the F.I.R. His statement is almost identical to that of the injured.
22. According to the applicant-2, the statements of other witnesses except Madhur Shayam, Ajay Kumar, Pooja Rani and Sanjiv Kumar Yadav, the other witnesses have not fully supported the F.I.R. No intention so as to commit the death of the injured can be gathered from the statements of the remaining witnesses.
23. On the above conspectus, it was thus vehemently urged on behalf of the applicants that no offence under section 307 IPC can be said to be made out against applicants. As there is no evidence on record to support the charge under Section 307 I.P.C., therefore, by reason of the law laid down by Apex Court in R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 866, the impugned charge sheet/police report as well as the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate in so far as they relate to an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. are liable to be quashed by this Court.
24. It was lastly contended that applicant-2 Kautilya Sharma and the first informant are practicing advocates. On account of some professional dispute, the present F.I.R. has been engineered to wreak vengeance.
25. On the edifice of aforesaid submissions it was thus urged that since no offence under section 307 IPC can be said to be made out against applicants, therefore, the impugned charge sheet as well the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order, whereby and whereunder accused applicants have been charge sheeted under section 307 IPC and also summoned by Court below under section 307 IPC are liable to be quashed by this Court to that extent.
26. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the complainant/opposite party-2, who has appeared in person, have vehemently opposed the present application. They submit that since prima facie case is made out against accused/applicants, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. It was urged on behalf of applicants that as per material on record, no offence under section 307 IPC can be said to be made out against applicants. It is thus apparent that what is sought to be contended before this Court is that present case is a case of no evidence so far as the offence under section 307 IPC is concerned. This Court should relegate the accused applicants to the trial Court itself for seeking partial discharge (qua the offence under section 307 IPC) before the trial Court itself by moving a discharge application in terms of section 227 Cr.P.C. On the aforesaid conspectus, it was thus urged that no interference is warranted by this Court in present application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
27. Having heard the parties and the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that it is an undisputed fact that applicant-2 and the first informant/opposite party-2 are practicing advocates at District Court Baghpat. It is also an undisputed fact that the entire family i.e. father,mother and son have been implicated in the crime in question. The injured in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has clearly stated that all the named accused along with two not named accused (clerks) assaulted her with the weapons in their hands with an intention to cause her death. However, as per medico legal report, the injured has sustained only one incised wound of 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. However, the injured in her statement has neither detailed the manner of assault nor has she identified the author of the said injury. There is only a bald recital in the statement of the injured that there was an intention to cause death of the injured.
28. In view of the rival submissions, the court has examined the statements of the prosecution witnesses as occurring in the case diary. The Court could not locate the statement of Madhur Shayam, Ajay Kumar, Pooja Rani and Sanjiv Kumar Yadav. Except for the three prosecution witnesses namely Miss. Nikesh Chauhan (first informant/sister of injured), Gurbachan (brother of first informant and injured) and Sudesh Chauhan (injured), no other prosecution witness has supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. It is further apposite to mention here that the accused has neither been charge sheeted under Section 34 I.P.C. nor under Section 149 I.P.C.
29. Since accused/applicants have been charge sheeted under Section 307 I.P.C., therefore, for ready reference, the same is reproduced herein below:
Section 307: Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.--2[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of 1[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.] llustrations
(a)A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued. A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.
(b)A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue.
(c)A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of 3[the first paragraph of] this section.
(d)A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A's keeping; A has not yet committed the offence defined in this section. A places the food on Z's table or delivers it to Z's servant to place it on Z's table. A has committed the offence defined in this section."
30. Ratan and Dhirajlal on The Indian Penal Code 33rd edition have observed that following constitute essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC.
(i) That the accused did an act;
(ii) That the act was done with intention or knowledge and under such circumstances to cause a bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause death or that such bodily injury was in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause such death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;and
(iii) That the accused had no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury.
31. In order to constitute an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. two ingredients of the offence must be present (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder: and (b) the doing of an act towards it. Vide Parsuram Pandey and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (2004) 13 SCC 189.
32. In Prakash Chandra Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and others AIR 2007 Supreme Court (Suppl.) 488, Court observed as under in paragraph 12, for recording a conviction under Section 307 IPC.
"12. From a bare perusal of the said provision, it is evident that first part thereof does not contemplate that receipt of any injury on the part of the victim is a pre-requisite for convicting an accused thereunder. In the event injuries are received, the second part of Section 307 would be attracted. The necessary ingredients for attracting the first part ofSection 307of the Indian Penal Code is intention or knowledge. The legal position would be evident from the illustration (c) appended to the said provision which reads as under: (c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of the first paragraph of this section."
33. What would be the parameters for awarding a conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. was considered in State of M.P. Vs. Imrat and another AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2967, wherein Court held as under in paragraphs 11 and 12:-
"11. It is sufficient to justify a conviction underSection 307if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The Section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, an accused charged underSection 307IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.
12. This position was highlighted inState of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patiland Ors. (1983 (2) SCC 28),Girija Shanker v. State of Uttar Pradesh(2004 (3) SCC 793), R. Parkash v. State of Karnataka (JT 2004 (2) SC 348) andState of M.P. v. Saleem @ Chamaru and Anr. (2005 (5) SCC 554)."
34. In State of M. P. Vs. Kanshi Ram and others AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1642, following has been observed in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 as to what would constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC:-
"10. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The Section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.
11. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and Ors. (1983 (2) SCC 28), Girija Shanker v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2004 (3) SCC 793), R. Parkash v. State of Karnataka (JT 2004 (2) SC 348) and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem @ Chamaru & Anr. [2005 (5) SCC 554].
12. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case.The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the injury."
35. After considering above noted decisions, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ganesh and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2012 (3) Allahabad Criminal Rulings concluded as follows in paragraphs 15 and 17:-
"15. Turning to the harangued contention that crime committed by the appellants will not be one under Section 307 IP.C., I find that there is much force in that castigation. For establishing charge of attempt to murder under Section 307, I.P.C. what has to be established, clear of all doubts, that accused necessarily possessed an intention to commit murder. this is sine qua non ingredient for that offence and absence of it will catapult accused case out of it. Voluminous judicial pronouncements., both by this Court has firmly laid down trite law that neither the injury nor it's nature is the guiding factor for making out of an offence under Section 307, I.P.C., but the primary and sole criterion is intention to commit murder. Although weapon used, site of injury caused, nature of injury, circumstance under which it is caused, attending facts and circumstances all the relevant factors to determine intention to commit murder but what cannot be eschewed from being proved to the hilt is the possessed intention to commit murder. In this respect, reliance an be placed on various Apex Court decisions, some of which are cited hereunder as exemplars.
17. Applying the reasoning laid down in by the Apex Court in the instant facts and circumstances, it is seen that a single blow was given to the injured at the spur of moment. Incident started because of tilling of soil. There was no previous enmity and none of the sides has any animus against each others. In respect of possession of field, there has been no litigation between both the sides. The doctor has nowhere stated that the injury sustained by the injured was grievous nature or dangerous to life. If the appellants harbingered an intention to commit murder. Ganesh would have pierced the appear into the chest of the injured with such force as would have caused his death, which he did not do. He never made any attempt to assault him with lathi, though he had carried it alongwith him. In such a view, looking to the entire facts and circumstances and the background in which the incident had occurred. It does not seems that the appellants has an intention to commit murder and, therefore, their conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. is indefensible and has to be scored out. Proven guilt of the appellants does not cross boundary of Section 324 I.P.C and it is only for that crime that the appellants can be convicted.
36. When the facts of present case are examined, in the light of law as detailed above, it is evident that the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. is not supported by the medical evidence on record. Inasmuch as the injured Sudesh Chauhan has sustained simple injury of 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. The F.I.R. alleges that apart from the named accused, there were two other persons (clerks) involved in the crime in question inasmuch as they are alleged to have assaulted the injured with Danda. However, no not named accused has been charge sheeted. This clearly disproves the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Except for the injured, the first informant and the brother of the injured/first informant, no other witness in his statement has supported the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. The injured in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has neither detailed the manner of occurrence nor she has identified the author of the injury sustained by her. The statement of Gurbachan, brother of first informant/injured is similar and identical to that of injured. Except for a bald recital in the statement of injured and Gurbachan that there was an intention to cause death of injured, nothing substantial has emerged. None of the aforesaid witnesses have specified the author of the injury sustained by the deceased nor have they detailed the manner of occurrence. The Doctor, who had examined the injured, in his statement has neither identified the weapon by which injury was caused nor has he opined that the injury sustained by the injured are grievous or fatal. How the injury i.e incised wound, came to be sustained by the injured is shrouded in obscurity. The occurrence giving rise to the present criminal proceedings has occurred in front of the chambers of the applicant-2 and the injured. As per the statements of the injured first informant, it cannot be conclusively concluded that there was an intention with the accused to cause the death of the injured. It is an undisputed fact that the injured and applicant-2 are practicing advocates at District-Baghpat. A trivial occurrence has been magnified to wreak vengeance. When the facts and circumstances of the present case as detailed above are examined in the light of observations made in the case of Ganesh and another (Supra), it cannot be conclusively concluded that an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against accused/applicants.
37. For all the reasons given above, the present application succeeds in part. It is accordingly partly allowed.
38. The impugned charge sheet/police report dated 13.3.2024 submitted by the Investigating Officer in Case Crime No. 1165 of 2022, Under Sections 307, 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat as well as the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in consequential Criminal Case No. 2523 of 2024 (State Vs. Smt. Chhama Sharma and others) Under Sections 307, 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat in so far as they relate to Section 307 I.P.C. shall stand quashed.
39. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the cost is made easy.
Order Date :- 30.9.2024 Vinay/YK