Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1815 (ALL)

Hanuman Prasad Sahu v. State of U. P.

2015-07-09

NAHEED ARA MOONIS

body2015
JUDGMENT Naheed Ara Moonis, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA and have taken through the record. 2. By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings pursuant to the charge sheet whereby the applicants have been summoned to face the trial in case no. 314 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 726 of 2012 under Sections 323/504/506/308 IPC, read with section 3 (1) (X) of S.C. & S.T.Act P.S. Kokh Raj, District Kaushambi pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Kaushambi. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case on the basis of false allegations made in the first information report. The applicant no.1 had lodged the first information report against the opposite party no.2 and two others on 18.11.2012. As a counter blast, the opposite party no.2 had lodged the first information report against the applicants under sections 323/504/506 IPC read with section 3 (1) (X) S.C. & S.T.Act. The investigating officer has conducted the investigation in a very pedantic and perfunctory manner which culminated into charge sheet under sections 323/504/506/308 IPC read with setion 3 (1) (X) of S.C. & S.T.Act and the court below has taken cognizance while prima facie no offence is made out against the applicants. The prosecution of the applicants on the basis of vague allegation being sheer abuse of process of law deserves to be vitiated. 4. Per contra learned AGA contended that the investigation was done in a fair and impartial manner and the investigating agency collected credible and clinching material on the basis of which charge sheet was submitted. The applicants will have ample opportunity to rake up their defence at the appropriate stage. 5. From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments of the learned AGA for the State, it cannot be said that no offence has been made out against the applicants. Cognizance taken by the trial court, whereby the applicants have been summoned to face the trial suffers from no illegality and as such the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused. 6. Cognizance taken by the trial court, whereby the applicants have been summoned to face the trial suffers from no illegality and as such the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused. 6. At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record. Only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is made out or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines in the case State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1999 SCC(Crl) 426, and State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC(Crl) 192. where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power envisaged under section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Having considered rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any justifiable ground for quashing the proceedings initiated pursuant to the charge sheet of the aforesaid case in exercise of its inherent powers conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. The application is accordingly dismissed. 8. However, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case applicants appear before the court concerned in the aforesaid case within 30 days and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of in view of decision rendered in the case Smt. Amrawati and another Vs. State of U .P. reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 755 which was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P. (2009) 4 SCC 437 .