Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3642 (ALL)

Syed Mohd. Surur Ali Abidi v. State Of U. P.

2009-12-02

AMAR SARAN

body2009
JUDGMENT: Amar Saran, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing the charge sheet and consequential proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2410 of 2009 State Vs. S.M. Surur Ali Abidi, arising out of case crime No. 138 of 2009, under Sections 307, 406, 504 IPC, P.S. Thakurganj, Lucknow, which is pending in the court of Special Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI (AP), Lucknow. The allegations in the FIR were that the opposite party no.2 was approached by the applicant, who told him that he would get? him a job? if he makes arrangement? for Rs. one lac. At his instance, the opposite party no.2 has arranged Rs. 40,000/ and given it to the applicant at his home.? But when he did not get the job as assured by the applicant, he was repeatedly approaching the applicant for return of money. On 17.3.2009 at about 9.30 P.M, when the opposite party no.2 was going towards Husainabad, the applicant and one other person, who were going on a Motor-cycle stopped him. The applicant abused him? and caught hold of his collar and the applicant took out a country made pistol from his waist and fired on the opposite party no.2. 2. The opposite party no.2 was medically examined at K.G.M.U, Lucknow? at 11.00 P.M. The medical report shows? abrasion on the right side of the back. The patient was referred to the? Emergency Ward. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the whole FIR and the charge sheet have been filed in a mala fide manner. He further argued that no injury was received by the applicant and the document in this respect is a forged document because? Khokha of 315 bore was found on the spot which completely destroys the? prosecution case. Elaborating his contention, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party no.2 had a criminal history and is a close associate of opposite party no.5, who is a Minister in the present government. I see no force in these arguments of learned counsel for the applicant. 3. The mere fact that some empty cartridge of 315 bore country made pistol was found on the spot would certainly not belie the prosecution case, when the? injured eye witnesses has specifically stated that the applicant had fired on him. I see no force in these arguments of learned counsel for the applicant. 3. The mere fact that some empty cartridge of 315 bore country made pistol was found on the spot would certainly not belie the prosecution case, when the? injured eye witnesses has specifically stated that the applicant had fired on him. Also the mere fact that the IO has not made the doctor as one of the witnesses in the charge sheet. This is a negligence on the part of the I.O, which? cannot provide any? ground for quashing the charge sheet or consequential proceedings thereof. It is next argued by learned counsel for the? applicant that the applicant had moved some applications prior to the occurrence before the? higher authorities. He also moved some applications? under the Right to Information Act and thereafter?? he moved an application through his daughter before the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, New Delhi, which can possibly? have no bearing on the eye witness account which is forthcoming. The applicant has ample opportunity to raise his defence during trial. It is important to mention that nowadays, a tendency is developed to link the complainant with the party in power and raise allegations that the entire process is mala fide. 4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has cited 2007 AIR (SC) 1117 Harishchandra Prasad Mani and ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and another. It was a case where the court reached a conclusion that there is not even an iota of evidence to connect the accused with the evidence and also there was no material to show that? poison had been administered to the deceased. The next? case cited by the learned counsel for the? applicant is Parminder Kaur Vs. State of U.P and another; 2009 AIOL 5099, wherein the Court observed that the respondent could not show how the appellant could be benefited in any manner by changing the dates. Both the cases are? distinguishable? from the present case. I find no force in this petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C and it is accordingly dismissed.