Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Kumar @ Jeetu And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 August, 2022
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 80 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26641 of 2021 Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar @ Jeetu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Irshad Ahmad, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned AGA for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge-sheet dated 26.10.2019 submitted in Case Crime No. 272of 2019 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. P.S. Kandhala, District-Sambhal, Cognizance Taking Order dated 21.11.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal at Kairana upon aforesaid charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings of consequential Criminal Case No. 3732/9 of 2019 (State Vs. Jitendra Kumar @ Jeetu and others) now pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal at Kairana
4. Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in above mentioned criminal case. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. As such, applicants are being falsely prosecuted in afore-mentioned case crime number. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicants thus urged that present criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed by this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. He submits that after registration of F.I.R. dated 23.07.2019, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, which is substantially adverse to applicants, Investigating Officer opined to submit a charge-sheet. Consequently, he submitted the charge sheet dated 26.10.2019 in above mentioned case crime number. In the charge sheet so submitted as many as seven prosecution witnesses have been nominated. He therefore contends that it cannot be said at this stage that prosecution of applicants is false or there is no material to support the prosecution of applicants. He has relied upon paragraph 37 of judgement in State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, A.I.R. 2019 Supreme Court 2499 wherein following has been observed.
"37. For issuance of process against the accused, it has to be seen only whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of issuance of process, the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value of the materials on record. The Court must apply its mind to the allegations in the charge sheet and the evidence produced and satisfy itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The Court is not to examine the merits and demerits of the case and not to determine the adequacy of the evidence for holding the accused guilty. The Court is also not required to embark upon the possible defences. Likewise, 'possible defences' need not be taken into consideration at the time of issuing process unless there is an ex- facie defence such as a legal bar or if in law the accused is not liable. [Vide Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another(2012) 11 SCC 465]"
6. It is then contended that charge sheet is the outcome of investigation. Since no deficiency, irregularity or illegality has been pointed out in investigation of above mentioned case crime number, the consequential charge sheet cannot be quashed.
7. It is lastly contended that entire material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation has not been brought on record. In the absence of same, this Court cannot examine veracity of allegations made in F.I.R, or the correctness of charge sheet. To buttress his submission, he has referred to the judgement of Apex Court in Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 580, wherein following has been observed in the last line of paragraph 25. Same is reproduced herein under:
"The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation"
8. When confronted with aforesaid, learned counsel for applicants could not over come the same.
9. Having heard learned counsel for applicants, 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 applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed defence of the applicant, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot appraise or appreciate evidence, as such an exercise can be undertaken only by trial court upon trial of above mentioned case. 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, 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.
10. In view of above, application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
11. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.8.2022 YK