Allahabad High Court
Shahrukh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 August, 2021
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 83 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12077 of 2021 Applicant :- Shahrukh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Ayyuq Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed challenging charge sheet No.48 of 2021 dated 07.02.2020 submitted in F.I.R. No. 0025 of 2021 under Sections 457, 380, 511 I.P.C., P.S. Pilkhua, District-Hapur, Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 08.03.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur upon aforesaid charge sheet as well as entire proceedings of consequential Criminal Case No.1624 of 2021 (State Vs. Shahrukh and Others) under Sections 398 and 401 I.P.C., P.S. Pilkhua, District-Hapur now pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur.
4. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in above mentioned F.I.R.. It is then contended that applicant is pursuing his B.A. course. Applicant is not named in F.I.R. Applicant has been implicated in above mentioned F.I.R. on the basis of statement of co-accused. It is thus submitted that statement of co-accused is not admissible. It is thus urged that since there is no evidence against applicant, therefore, prosecution of applicant is not only false but also malicious. Consequently, entire proceedings of above mentioned case are liable to be quashed by this Court.
4. Per Contra, learned A.G.A has opposed the present application. He submits that applicant has been charge sheeted under Sections 398 and 401 I.P.C. on the basis of material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, which is adverse to applicant. It is on the basis of same that Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet. Perusal of charge sheet goes to show that as many as six prosecution witnesses have been nominated therein. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that prosecution of applicant is false or there is no evidence to support the prosecution of applicant. Learned A.G.A. then contends that issue as to whether evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution in support of charge sheet is admissible or inadmissible can be examined by court below during course of trial. This court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 cannot appraise and appreciate evidence to record a finding one way or other. On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A contends that present application is liable to be dismissed.
5. When confronted with aforesaid, learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
6. Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed defence of applicants, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. This Court cannot appraise or appreciate evidence to record a finding one way or other. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
7. In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, present application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.8.2021 YK