Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Ram And 10 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 August, 2021
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 49 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7326 of 2021 Applicant :- Rajesh Ram And 10 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Janardan Prakash, learned AGA for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against the present applicants arising out of Chargesheet No.A-59/2019 dated 13.07.2019, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC in Case Crime No.63 of 2019, Police Station Chitbadagaon, District Ballia, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-Ist Ballia, District Ballia, on the grounds that its a case of counter blast.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants has taken this court through medical examination of Rajesh Kumar, who was examined on 26.06.2019 at 12:25 pm after being brought by Vikramaditya Singh, Constable. Similarly, another injured Sanjay Kumar was examined at 12:10 pm on 26.06.2019 on being brought by Vikramaditya Singh, Constable. It is submitted that on the contrary complainant parties members were examined on 26.06.2019 at 1:30 pm, 1:40 pm, 11:45 am and 11:55 am and, therefore, there was no occasion for the police personnel to not to record a FIR at the instance of the present applicants whereas Case Crime No.0063 of 2019 was registered against the present applicants.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is mala fide on the part of the I.O. in filing the chargesheet and not recording FIR moved on behalf of the present applicants, as a result, they were forced make a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. to the court concerned.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Forum, Prevention of Environment & Sound Pollution vs. Union of India & Another, Appeal (Civil) 3735 of 2005 decided on 28.10.2005 to point out that playing of D.J. causing noise pollution is prohibited as per the provisions contained in the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) (Amendment) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 2002') w.e.f 11.10.2002 from 10:00 pm to 6:00 am and, therefore, admittedly when complainant party, who have lodged FIR against the present applicants, were playing D.J. on the night of 25.06.2019 at about 10:30 pm, then they were in fact violating the provisions of the Rules of 2002, but mala fidely a report has been lodged against the present applicants.
6. Sri Janardan Prakash, learned AGA opposes and submits that there is no mention of application under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in the present application. No relief has been sought in regard to that application. He further submits that as far as allegations of mala fide are concerned, I.O. has not been impleaded as a party and, therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn on the touchstone of mala fide.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, as far as decision of Supreme Court in case of Forum, Prevention of Environment & Sound Pollution (supra) is concerned, the ratio of the judgment is that looking at the diversity of cultures and religions in India, we think that a limited power of exemption from the operation of the noise rules, granted by the Central Government, in exercise of its statutory power cannot be held to be unreasonable. In that case, the dispute was whether the rules providing for conferring powers on the State Government to relax timings for playing of D.J. can be delegated or not, is not pari materia to the present facts of the case. Here, what is important is that whether an incident had taken place giving rise to commission of cognizable offence or not necessitating registration of FIR in terms of the provisions contained in Section 154 Cr.P.C. If, it is found that a cognizable offence was committed, the police is bound to investigate and file a chargesheet.
8. Chargesheet can be quashed only on the broad principles as have been laid in paragraph 102 of the judgment in case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335.
9. Even other wise in case of International Advanced Research Centre For Powder Matallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) and others Vs. Nirma Cerglass Technic Private Limited and another, (2016) 1 SCC 348, it has been held that the authority vested in a High Court to interfere in the matter of quashing of chargesheet is to be exercised in a rarest of rare circumstances.
10. Applicants have failed to make out any of the circumstances enumerated in para 102 of the judgment rendered in case of Bhajan Lal (supra), therefore, in my opinion no ground is made out by referring to the inherent weaknesses of the opposite parties i.e. complainant party that they were playing D.J. beyond the prescribed time to authorize the applicants to indulge in such acts which may amount to commission of a cognizable offence.
11. Therefore, application fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.8.2021 Ravi/-