Allahabad High Court
Ram Baran Singh vs State Of U.P. & Another on 12 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 28 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2539 of 2021 Applicant :- Ram Baran Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Rupendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing State and perused the record.
By filing this 482 Cr.P.C. application, following prayer has been made by the applicants :
"For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to quash the charge sheet no.22A/14 dated 8.12.2014 and summoning order dated 5.12.2015, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana Amethi, in FIR No.238 of 2014, Case Crime No.1070A/2014, under Sections 147,504,506 IPC, P.S.Musafirkhana, District Amethi (State v. Ram Baran Singh and others) pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana Amethi as contained in Annexure no.1 & 2 to this petition and further be pleased to stay the entire criminal proceedings relating to FIR no.238/2014, case crime no.1070A/2014, under Section 147,504,506 IPC at P.S.Musafirkhana, District Amethi (State v. ram Baan Singh and others), pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Musafirkhana, Amethi."
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the instant FIR has been lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant as a counter blast of the earlier FIR lodged by the applicant against the opposite party no.2 and his other associates on 12.10.2014 at 16.30 hours pertaining to an incident occurred on the same day at 8.00 a.m. in the morning.
It is further submitted that the three witnesses, whose statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer had categorically stated that the incident had occurred near the house of the applicant Ram Baran Singh, which clearly suggests that the opposite party was the aggressor.
It is next submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case has not investigated the allegations of the FIR in right perspective and has completely disregarded the cross case filed by the applicant and this aspect of the matter has also been neglected and ignored by the Magistrate by taking cognizance and issuing process against the applicant. It is requested that the whole proceeding pending in the court below are nothing but the abuse of the process of law and therefore, the same may be quashed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand submits that with regard to a single incident two versions of the FIR has been reported at Police Station by the rival parties. In both the FIRs lodged at P.S.Musafirkhana, the time of occurrence is same i.e. 8.00 a.m, however the FIR lodged by the applicant is of date 12.10.2014. He submits that the aggressor could only be decided after full fledged trial.
Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record it is evident that with regard to an incident allegedly occurred on 12.10.2014, FIR by the applicant against the opposite party no.2 was lodged on 12.10.2014 at 16.30 hours while the counter FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant on 16.10.2014 at 15.30 hours.
It is also evident that the charge sheet in this case has been filed in the year 2014 and the Magistrate has also taken cognizance of the matter in the year 2015 and issued process against the applicant. Thereafter it is not apparent as to why the applicant has not appeared before the trial court till now and it is informed that the applicant has not surrendered before the court below and he has been advised to challenge the proceedings of the trial court before this Court praying for quashment of the proceedings as well as the charge sheet and summoning order after six years of the taking of cognizance.
Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, there are two counter FIRs pertaining to a single incident, the veracity of the statement of the prosecution witnesses could only be appreciated during full fledged criminal trial and that stage has not come yet. The perusal of the FIR would reveal commission of cognizable offence and, therefore, it could not be said that no offence is emerging out if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face. The law with regard to the jurisdiction of 482 Cr.P.C. is quite clear that the veracity or the merits of the allegations contained in the application or FIR is not to be gone into by the court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., therefore, having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843, and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the prayer for quashing the Charge-sheet, summoning order as well as all proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.
A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications should be decided, expeditiously.
In in the backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the request of learned counsel for applicant, the application is disposed of with direction to the trial court that if applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 15 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Irfan