Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Nazim @ Nazim vs State Of U.P.And Another on 7 May, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 91 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9668 of 2022 Applicant :- Mohammad Nazim @ Nazim Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankur Varshney,Kuldeep Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
This criminal misc. application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 04.07.2020, cognizance order dated 27.08.2020 as well as non-bailable warrant dated 14.12.2021 (State vs. Nazim) in Case No.7885/9 of 2020 arising out of case crime no.460 of 2019 under Section 498A, 323, 506, 376, 452, 354B, 307 IPC & D.P. Act, P.S. Mansoor Pur, District Muzaffar Nagar pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, court no.2 Muzaffar Nagar.
The opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR against the applicant and three others for demand of dowry, harassment, torture etc and also regarding specific incident dated 13.10.2019 of assault with sharp-edged weapon. There are also allegations against the applicant for attempt to commit rape. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted for offence under Section 498A, 354, 323, 506, 452, 307 and 376 IPC.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is the uncle of the husband of opposite party no.2 (Chachiya Sasur). His living is separate. He lives at village Basdhara, P.S. Shahpur, District Muzaffarnagar while husband of applicant lives at village Jaroda which is situated at distance of about 25 kms from the village of the applicant. Applicant has no concern with the family members of the co-accused Hashim, the husband of applicant no.2. Applicant has not taken any money as dowry. It is also contended that husband of opposite party no.2 and his family members are labour class persons and the applicant's economic condition is in better position. Due to this reason, the applicant has been implicated. The learned Judidial Magistrate in a mechanical manner without applying judicial mind has taken cognizance. It is also contended that that applicant resides at Saudi Arabia since long. The applicant came to India on 24.03.2022 and after getting certified copies of the relevant documents, came at Allahabad and moved this application.
Learned AGA opposed and submitted that applicant is named in the FIR and there are specific allegations against him which have been corroborated by the informant/ victim in her statement recorded U/s 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. The other witnesses have also corroborated it. There is injury report in support of the prosecution version. According to injury report, there are nine visible injuries on the body of the informant. Some of the injuries are of sharp-edged weapon and pointed weapons. On the basis of credible evidence, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant-accused in a henious offence of rape and attempt to murder. Learned Magistrate being satisfied with the material on record has taken cognizance on it. There is no sufficient ground to quash the charge-sheet or cognizance order.
FIR has been lodged against four accused persons. Accused-applicant is also one of them and there are specific allegations against him in the FIR. On the basis of evidence collected during investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted. The medico legal report is also supporting the prosecution version. It is settled principle of law that at this stage only prima-facie case is to be seen as propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. All other arguments as assailed by the learned counsel for the applicant are matter of trial which cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding U/s 482 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate being satisfied with the material available on the case diary has taken cognizance. There is no illegality in the impugned cognizance order. There is nothing to show that the charge-sheet or continuation of proceedings is an abuse of the process of court.
Accordingly, the application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.5.2022 C. MANI