Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 23 May, 2022
Author: Rajendra Kumar-Iv
Bench: Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 83 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38374 of 2018 Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Girish Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard learned Counsel for applicant, learned AGA for State, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the material available on record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.376 of 2016, State versus Ramesh Chandra Vaishya, (Case Crime No.23 of 2016), Police Station Tharwai, District Allahabad and charge sheet dated 21.01.2016 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has committed no offence. Entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. No offence against the applicant is made out under the alleged sections. It is further submitted that incident is said to be occurred on 14.01.2016. Nobody has been injured from the side of informant. Applicant himself lodged an FIR against the opposite party no.2 in which incident is also said to be occurred on 14.01.2016. Civil dispute is already pending between the parties and informant tried to settle his dispute of civil nature by making it criminal one. Applicant himself injured in the incident. Informant lodged FIR against the applicant to protect himself from the FIR lodged by the applicant. Injuries shown from the side of informant are manipulated. He showed some papers and statements in favour of his contention.
Learned AGA as well as learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the application and submitted that this is a cross case and in the incident informant sustained three injuries on his person. It is further submitted that both the parties sustained injuries in the incident. First informant has lodged the FIR. It is a cross case and who is aggressor cannot be observed in the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C, it can be only determined after the evidence is adduced by both the parties.
After going through the FIR and other documents, I am of the view that at this stage it cannot be said that commission of cognizable offence is not made out or there is any error legal or otherwise in the order passed by Court below against applicant. The allegations being factual in nature can be decided only subject to evidence. In view of settled legal proposition, no findings can be recorded about veracity of allegations at this juncture in absence of evidence. Apex Court has highlighted that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be sparingly/rarely invoked with complete circumspection and caution. In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and others, (2019) 6 SCC 107, Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under :
"15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.
16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence.
17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case."
(emphasis added) Having considered the submissions made by learned learned Counsel for the parties, no material irregularity, legal or otherwise, is found in the submission of charge sheet or procedure followed by the Court below; I do not see any good ground justifying interference in the matter.
The application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.5.2022 I.A.Siddiqui