Allahabad High Court
Lallan Mishra And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 August, 2021
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 83 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13307 of 2021 Applicant :- Lallan Mishra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This application under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed challenging charge sheet dated 05.08.2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 0071 of 2020, under Sections 342, 308 IPC, P.S. Bansdih Road, District Ballia, Cognizance Taking Order dated 29.09.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate II, Ballia, upon aforesaid charge sheet as well as entire proceedings of consequential Criminal Case, arising out of above mentioned case crime number, now pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Ballia.
Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. On account of kidnapping of grand daughter of applicant 1, an F.I.R. dated 14.9.2019 was lodged by applicant 1 Lallan Mishra which was registered as Case Crime No. 0109 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Bansdih Road, District Ballia. In the aforesaid F.I.R. one Amit Varma has been nominated as solitary named accused. Pursuant to aforesaid F.I.R., police made an attempt to recover the accused. On fateful date, accused who was in a public place was chased, but he fell down on account of which he sustained injuries. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that no offence under Section 308 IPC is made out against applicant. Present criminal proceedings have been engineered as pressure tactics to overcome criminal proceedings initiated by applicant-1. It is thus submitted that present criminal proceedings are not only malicious, but also an abuse of process of Court. Consequently, same are liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. He contends that after lodging of F.I.R. dated 2.7.2020 lodged by first informant/opposite party 2, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime no. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer recorded statements of first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C., who have supported the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. On the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer (particularly injury report of injured) which is substantially adverse to applicants.
After completion of investigation, Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet dated 05.08.2020 whereby named accused i.e. applicants herein have been charge-sheeted under sections 342 and 308 IPC.In the charge sheet so submitted as many as 9 prosecution witnesses have been nominated. Upon submission of aforesaid charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by Court concerned, vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 29.09.2020. As a consequence of aforesaid, above mentioned criminal case case came to be registered. Thereafter, applicants have been summoned in above mentioned criminal case.
On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A. contends that it cannot be said at this stage that applicants are being falsely prosecuted or there is no material to support prosecution of applicants. It is also contended by learned A.G.A. that charge sheet is the outcome of investigation, As no deficiency, irregularity or illegality has been pointed out in investigation of above mentioned case crime no., consequential charge sheet cannot be challenged. Placing reliance upon paragraph 37 of judgement in Nupur Talwar Vs. C.B.I. and another, (2012) 11 SCC, 465 learned A.G.A. contends that at this stage, Court has to examine whether sufficient material exists for summoning accused andnot whether material is sufficient for convicting the accused. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus urged by learned A.G.A. that present application is liable to be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and from 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 the applicants, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. This Court cannot appraise and appreciate evidence to record a finding one way or the 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.
In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.8.2021/HSM