Allahabad High Court
Animesh Kumar Ojha vs State Of U.P. & Another on 8 February, 2013
Author: Vishnu Chandra Gupta
Bench: Vishnu Chandra Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Reserved on 16.1.2013
Criminal Misc. Case No. 573 of 2012
(Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)
Animesh Kumar Ojha, S/o Shri P.N.Ojha,R/O C-68 Staff Colony,Motilal Nehru Engineering College Teliyarganj, P.S. Shivkuti, District- Allahabad
....... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Uttar Pradesh.
2. Hari Shanker Yadav S/o Jagdeesh Prasad Yadav R/o Hashimpur,P.S. Ibrahimpur,District-Ambedkarnagar.
....Opposite parties
Petitioner's counsel- Shiwa Kant Tiwari, Shri Santosh Kumar Dwivedi.
State counsel- AGA
Hon'ble Vishnu Chandra Gupta,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA.
2. This petition is being decided at admission stage without issuing notice to respondent no. 2.
3. By means of this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing the charge-sheet No. 56/11 dated 16.2.2011 filed at case crime no. 821/10, under sections 279, 338, 304A IPC, P.S. Kotwali Akbarpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar and summoning order dated 13.4.2011 as well as the proceeding of Case No. 1385/2011 (State Vs. Animesh Kumar Ojha) pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar.
4. Brief facts for disposal of this petition are narrated here-in-below.
5. On 15.8.2010 at 4.00 p.m. Ram Sumant Yadav,Senior Advocate alongwith his wife Smt. Lalpatti were going on his motorcycle No. U.P.45-05097 from Akbarpur through Baskhari Road. When they reached near village Neotariya a Maruti Car having registration no. U.P.-45F-2122 dashed his Motorcycle from behind. In this accident Ram Sumant Yadav died on spot, however, his wife Lalpatti received injuries.
6. An F.I.R. of this incident was lodged by one Hari Shanker Yadav (respondent no. 2) on 17.8.2010 at 14.40 Hrs. at police station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkarnagar. Hari Shanker Yadav, Dinesh Kumar ,Subhash Yadav and Anil Mishra etc. were the witnesses of this accident, whose names were mentioned in the FIR. The investigation proceeded.
7. Several persons gave affidavit to R.K.Sharma, Circle Officer (City), Ambedkar Nagar to the effect that vehicle no. 45F/2122 belongs to Dr. Nigam, who was present on 15.8.2010 at Anganvari Kendra, Angrauli alongwith aforesaid vehicle from 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. and his vehicle has been falsely implicated in this case. On 25.8.2010 C.O.(City), Ambedkar Nagar wrote a letter to the I/c Inspector, Kotwalti Akbarpur for necessary action therein.
8. During the course of investigation witnesses Ram Das Chaiwala, Rakesh Kumar having tea shop, Dinesh Verma tea and betal shop holder and Rajat Ram cycle shop holder and Smt. Lalpatti wife of Ram Sumant Yadav were interrogated by the police. They informed that the vehicle involved in this accident was actually U.P. 70BF/2122 (White cream colour Manza TATA Car) and not Maruti Car U.P. 45F/2122. Respondent no. 2 Hari Shankar Yadav was also interrogated by the police. He filed affidavit stating therein that in the FIR he mentioned wrong number of vehicle U.P. 45F/2122 on the basis of information given by the person, while correct number of vehicle was U.P. 70BF-2122, which belongs to the petitioner, who was Assistant Professor in Motil Lal Nehru Engineering College, Allahabad.
9. The petitioner has challenged the charge-sheet filed against him on the ground that he was on leave on 14.8.2010 and 15.8.2010 and proceeded from Allahabad on 14.8.2010 to his village Godhali, P.S. Basdeeh Road in District Balia alongwith his driver because he was invited as Chief Guest in the function of Independence Day organized in Dadanlal Smarak Sant Ravidas, Junior High School, Yarpur Bendua, District Balia on 15.8.2010. He remained present there on 15.8.2010 from 7.00 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. Thereafter, he proceeded back to Allahabad by his vehicle having registration no. U.P. 70 BF-2122 (TATA Manza Car) alongwith driver. His elder brother Aviral Kumar Ojha, Dayashanker Upadhyaya son of Jagdish Upadhyaya and Ram Nivas Tiwari son of late Bachha Tiwari were also in this Car and reached Allahabad safely. Thus, his vehicle has falsely been implicated in this case.
10. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, learned AGA filed counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the State.
11. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that in the FIR Vehicle No. U.P. 45 F/2122 was mentioned. The name of driver and address was not known. It was lodged at 14.40 hours on 17.8.2010. During investigation vehicle no. U.P. 70BF/2122 has come into light, due to which petitioner's name came into light.
12. Insurance papers issued by the National Insurance Company Ltd. have been annexed as annexure no. 1 to the SCA. which show that Maruti A-Star Car having registration no. U.P. 45/F2122 is in the name of Dr. Munni Lal son Shri Parsadi Ram and is insured w.e.f 30.9.2011 to 29.9.2012 having model of 2009. Other paper shows that Manza Car having registration no. U.P. 70 BF 2122 is registered in the name of petitioner and was insured w.e.f 21.6.2010 to 20.6.2011 having model of year 2010.
13. Copy of Motor Accident Claim Petition bearing no. 31 of 2011 filed by Smt. Lalpatti and others against Animesh Kumar Ojha and also copy of Motor Claim Petition bearing No. 30 of 2011 filed by Smt. Lalpatti against Animesh Kumar Ojha before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /District Judge, Ambedkarnagar claiming compensation or death of Ram Sumant Yadav and for her injuries have been annexed as annexure no. 1 to the SCA.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was Assistant Professor in Motilal Nehru Engineering College, Allahabad. In this case Ram Sumant Yadav, who was Senior Advocate of Civil Court, Ambedkar Nagar died. He further submits that the vehicle which was initially mentioned in the FIR was of important person belonging to district Ambedkarnagar and under pressure the petitioner's car was implicated falsely. It is further submitted that in the F.I.R. specific make of Car has been mentioned as ' Maruti' and the correct number of vehicle UP 45-F-2122 has been mentioned. This Maruti Car was not having insurance on the date of accident, therefore, under pressure of local influential persons, the vehicle of petitioner having resemblance of last number was falsely implicated in this case. Actually the car belonging to the petitioner was not Maruti Car but it was Tata Manza Car. It is further submitted that Hari Shankar Yadav (Complainant) is an illiterate person who claimed himself to be an eye witness of the alleged accident. He mentioned the registration number of vehicle involved in the accident by his own personal knowledge in the FIR, but in his statement that wrong number was communicated to him is not believable. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer recorded the evidence of the persons nearby place of accident after lapse of two months with oblique motives to falsely implicate the vehicle of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the vehicle was never taken into custody nor technically examined to prove that the alleged vehicle was involved in this accident. On these grounds entire charge-sheet alongwith summoning order and proceedings pending in pursuance of the charge-sheet were sought to be quashed.
15. The learned A.G.A. Vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that while exercising the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. this court cannot meticulously examine the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. They stated in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. that actually the vehicle involved in the accident was U.P. 70 BF 2122. Therefore, it cannot be said that no case is made out against the petitioner on the basis of material collected during investigation.
16. I have considered the submissions of the both sides. 17. In view of the latest judgment rendered in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Surendra Kori, 2012 (10) SCC 155, wherein it has been held that inherent power is wide with no statutory limitation. But the Apex Court cautioned the High Court that such power should have been exercised in accordance with limits in grafted under section 482 Cr.P.C i.e. to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kori (Supra) has held in para 14 at page 163:-
" The High court in exercise of its power under section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a court of appeal or revision. This court has in several judgments held that inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High court under section 482 Cr.P.C. should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, moreso, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issue involved, whether factual or legal, one of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true prospective without sufficient material."
18. In the judgment rendered in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. 2011 (12) SCC 437, the Apex Court has held that High Court cannot get into meticulous analysis of facts as to likelihood of acquittal or conviction. It is the job of the trial Court and not of the High Court.
19. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions referred hereinabove, I am of the view that petitioner has remedy to move appropriate application before trial court. If such application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided by the trial court on the basis of material available on record.
20. In view of the above, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
GSY
8th February, 2013 (Justice Vishnu Chandra Gupta)