Allahabad High Court
Radhey Shyam vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 February, 2023
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 68 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41808 of 2022 Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Babu Sharma, Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard Mr. Ram Babu Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material available on record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal at Chandausi in Case Crime No.189 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 304, 452, 323, 324, 325, 34 IPC, Police Station Rajpura, District Sambhal whereby the process under Section 82/83 has been issued and order has been passed for attachment of property of the applicant.
In short, the allegation against the applicants as per impugned FIR is that on 28.05.2022 at about 5.00 pm the accused persons, namely, Sultan Singh, Ancho Devi, Pramod, Veopal and Man Singh armed with lathi, danda and iron rod, entered into the house of Shishupal, where the father of informant, namely, Rajveer Singh was present, assaulted the father of informant, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries on his head and when the mother of informant Premshree, daughter Usha, Pyarelal, Shishupal, Prakash, Ram Niwas and Veervati came to same his father, the accused persons also assaulted them. It is further alleged that after the incident, the injured Rajveer was taken to government hospital from where he was referred to District Hospital, Sambhal and ultimately he died on 29.05.2022 at about 7.00 am.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to pressurize and harass the applicant, in fact, no such incident has taken place. Further submission is that according to the version of the FIR, the accused persons armed with hard blunt object and no persons were having sharp cutting weapon but the injuries found on the body of deceased Rajveer Singh was not caused by hard and blunt object. Further submission is that after registration of the FIR, the recovery of iron rod has been made from the co-accused Man Singh. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against co-accused persons, namely, Sultan Singh, Veopal, Man Singh and Veerpal whereas the investigation against the applicant Radhey Shyam, Ancho Devi and Pramod were going on. Further submission is that after filing the charge sheet, the applicant approached this Court by filing criminal misc writ petition and this Court dismissed the said writ petition observing that since the proceeding under Section 83 cr.p.c. has already been issued, the applicant have remedy of filing application u/s 482 cr.p.c. Further submission is that neither applicant named in the FIR nor the informant took the name of the applicant in his statement. First time, the name of the applicant has been disclosed by the eye witness, namely, Gajendra Singh, who is brother of the informant and stated that the applicant was holding lathi in his hand, but no injury caused by lathi was found on the head of the deceased, which clearly indicates that the applicant did not cause any injury to the deceased but the learned Magistrate without considering above these aspects, has illegally issued process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. for attachment of property of the applicant.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer and have submitted that as per postmortem report of the deceased, the deceased was sustained as many as four injuries and cause of death has been shown due to ante mortem head injury. They have further submitted that despite issuance of N.B.W, applicant did not appear before the court below, as such, proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against him and further, despite initiation of proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C., the applicant did not again appear before the court below, as such, recovery warrant has rightly been issued against him. There is absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the present application is liable to be dismissed.
Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the applicant did not appear before the court below, as such, N.B.W, proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. and recovery warrant has rightly been issued against him. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and do not call for any interference by this Court.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.2.2023 Ajeet