Allahabad High Court
Sushil Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 May, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74198 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14839 of 2025 Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Giri,Surendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Giri, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. Deepak Kapoor, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.
The present application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 21.12.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 25.03.2025 as well as the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No.27 of 2025 (State Vs. Sushil Kumar Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.282 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNS and Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(d)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Saraimamrej, District-Allahabad, pending in the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj.
Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged on 18.11.2024 at about 00:57 hrs by opposite party no.2 against applicant with the allegation that for some earlier dispute, an FIR was lodged as Case Crime No.119 of 2020, Police Station-Saraimamrej, District-Prayagraj, due to which the applicant being annoyed, on 15.11.2024 at about 08:30 p.m., assaulted the opposite party no.2 with lathi, danda and used caste indicative words, when the opposite party no.2 was at Rastipur crossing. The opposite party no.2 sustained injuries. On screaming, when the nearby shopkeeper came, the applicant went away. The information about the aforesaid incident was given to 112 Police and thereafter, the opposite party no.2 got medically examined. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted pursuant to which the applicant has been summoned.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations due to ulterior motive. There is a property dispute between the parties due to which the present FIR has been lodged to exert pressure upon the applicant. Earlier also for some property dispute, an FIR has been lodged, wherein interim protection was given to the applicant by order dated 03.02.2021 passed in Application U/s 482 No.2357 of 2021. He further submits that the medical report has been procured in a forged/fabricated manner by the opposite party no.2 as the alleged incident is of 15.11.2024 and the opposite party no.2 has been medically examined on 17.11.2024. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He, therefore, submits that the charge-sheet, summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court.
Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that from the version of FIR as well as statement of charge sheet witnesses, prima facie, offences are made out. The medical report goes to show that the injuries were 2-3 days old. There are three injuries which are as under:-
"1. Contusion 4.0 cm X 2.0 cm left side face, 2.0 cm below from the left ear.
2. Contusion 13.0 cm X 6.0 cm on left buttock region.
3. Contusion 8.0 cm X 5.0 cm on the left thigh, 24.0 cm above from left knee joint."
He further submits that there was pain in cervical area also. The medical corroborates the version of FIR wherein the opposite party no.2 has stated about injuries being caused on his head, face and thigh by lathi and danda. It has also been mentioned in the medical report, the injury has been caused by hard and blunt object for the reasons as mentioned in the FIR.
As regards the interim order granted in the earlier application filed by the applicant alongwith others, the interim order has not been extended as is evident from order dated 04.08.2022, which has been passed on to the Court today by counsel for the opposite party no.2 and is kept on record. Even if it is presumed that some civil litigation is pending between the parties, the applicant was not required to go and assault the opposite party no.2 and use caste indicative language. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicant and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:-
(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866,
(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335,
(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,
(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122,
(v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682,
(vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454,
(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and lastly
(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 21.12.2024 and summoning order dated 25.03.2025 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.
The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Jitendra/-