Allahabad High Court
Shiv Bahadur Gautam vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 4 September, 2020
Author: Virendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Virendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 28 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2041 of 2020 Applicant :- Shiv Bahadur Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Ghanshyam Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
In view of COVID-2019 pandemic, the matter is being heard in Chamber through Video Conferencing.
The instant application has been filed by applicant Shiv Bahadur Gautam under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.6634 of 2020 (State vs. Shiv Bahadur Gautam) as well as charge sheet dated 16.05.2020 arising out of case Crime no.63 of 2020, under Sections 307, 504 and Section 27/30 Arms Act, Police Station Maharajganj, District Faizabad (Ayodhya) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Faizabad.
Heard Sri Ghanshyam Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Hansraj Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that statement of the injured person is not supported with FIR as well as with injury report. Learned counsel further submits that investigation has not been properly conducted and charge sheet has been submitted without considering the material available on record. The learned Magistrate has also without applying judicial mind took cognizance of the offence and issued summoning order against the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that his bail application has already been allowed by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that the whole criminal proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed.
Per-contra, learned A.G.A. had vehemently opposed and submits that in this case grievous fire arm injury has been caused by the applicant. The applicant is named in the FIR. Learned A.G.A. further submits that from perusal of record, cognizable offence is made out and at this stage, the truthfulness of falsehood of the case cannot be adjudged.
As per prosecution story, informant and his cousin brother Ajeet Singh were present on 20.2.2020 in a tilak ceremony of one Haribhan Singh's son, co-villager of the informant. The applicant Shiv Bahadur Gautam was making harsh (celebrating) firing by his double barrel gun whereupon injured Ajeet Singh raised objection. Then the applicant and one Dhirendra Singh hurled abuses to injured Ajeet Singh and applicant fired at Ajeet which caused serious injuries to him. The injured was taken to hospital wherefrom he was referred to Trauma Centre, Lucknow. After registration of the FIR, investigation was concluded and charge sheet was filed under the aforesaid sections.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri R.P. Kapoor and Ors. vs. The State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 447, State of Harayana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843, Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. State of Maharashtra AIR (2019) SC 847, after discussing the nature and scope of power of High Court U/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (code), has held that the High Court can exercise the inherent powers provided under Section 482 of the Code only to prevent the misuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice and this power can only be exercised when no other specific remedy is available to the applicant under the provision of the Code. It has also been established that no interference is required with the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 190 of Code, regarding taking the cognizance of the offence or u/s 204 of the Code regarding the summoning of accused, if prima-facie offence is made out from consideration of material available on record. At this stage, merit of the case or truthfulness of the material on record cannot be adjudged.
From perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant relate to disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudged at this stage. At this stage, only prima-facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in above mentioned cases.There is no illegality either in any order or in aforesaid criminal proceeding.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the charge sheet dated 16.05.2020 in aforesaid proceeding is refused.
In view of the above, the application is misconceived and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.9.2020 P.s.