Allahabad High Court
Amit Alias Amit Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 February, 2023
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4587 of 2023 Applicant :- Amit Alias Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Shukla,Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
List revised.
Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Amit Alias Amit Kumar with the following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present Criminal Misc. Application and quash the impugned order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C., Sambhal at Chandausi in Case No. 500/2022(State vs. Amit Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No. 346/2019, under Section 354, 326 I.P.C., Police Station- Chandausi, District Sambhal and also to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 500/2022(State vs. Amit Kumar), under Section 354, 326 I.P.C., pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C., Sambhal at Chandausi.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Case No. 500/2022(State vs. Amit Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No. 346/2019, under Section 354, 326 I.P.C., Police Station - Chaudausi, District Sambhal, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C., Sambhal at Chandausi during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court and/or may pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant would suffer an irreparable loss and injury."
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the order impugned dated 17.11.2022 allowed the application dated 17.8.2022 of the prosecution to the effect that offence under Section 326A I.P.C. is made out and as such the same is triable by the court of Session and, therefore, the matter be committed to the court of Session. The trial court came to a conclusion that offence under Section 326A I.P.C. is made out against the applicant and as such posted the matter for further orders on further date. It is argued that the said order is arbitrary order and is also illegal. It is argued that an F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 354, 326 I.P.C. against the applicant and Pushpendra, after which after conclusion of investigation and submission of charge sheet, charge was framed against the applicant vide order dated 21.6.2022 under Sections 354, 326 I.P.C. by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal at Chandausi. Learned counsel has argued that the prosecution case is of sprinkling petrol and setting the victim on fire but there is no allegation of use of acid or any such substance in the incident and as such Section 326A I.P.C. is not made out. It is argued while placing the judgement in the case of Hakim and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 2020, decided on 13.10.2022 of the Delhi High Court, that the words 'any other means' as stated in Section 326A I.P.C. would relate to substances which are acidic/corrosive/burning in nature but would not include petrol. It is argued that petrol is a substance which is not acidic/corrosive/burning in nature and as such Section 326A I.P.C. would not be made out. It is argued that the substance used as per the prosecution case was petrol which by itself could not have cause any disfiguration or burning but would only have acted if it would have been ignited. It is argued that as such the order impugned stating that offence under Section 326A I.P.C. is made out, is bad in the eyes of law and the case needs to be tried as per the charge framed vide order dated 21.6.2022. It is argued that as such the present application 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed and the impugned order be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that as per the prosecution case there has been use of petrol on the victim after which she was set ablaze. The order impugned dated 17.11.2022 has considered the said aspect in detail and while adverting to the ingredients of Section 326A I.P.C. the trial court has come to the conclusion that the offence under Section 326A I.P.C. is made out. Section 326A I.P.C. clearly states of the use of acid by throwing of or by administering acid or by using any other means with intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt. The same reads as under:-
"326A. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc. Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine;
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim:
Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim."
Thus from reading of Section 326A I.P.C. it is clear that any substance otherwise which may cause some disfiguration, temporary and permanent disability would be included in the same. Although petrol is a substance not directly causing some disfiguration, temporary and permanent disability, but if used with that intention and further after throwing it is set ablaze, it would cause such injuries and it cannot be said that the person while using such substance would not have knowledge or even would not have intention that the said person would not be having such injury or hurt.
In view of the same, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not has any substance and is thus dismissed.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 23.2.2023 Naresh