Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 154 (ALL)

Vaibhav Nigam v. State Of U. P.

2020-01-14

ANIL KUMAR IX

body2020
JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar-IX, J. 1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant with prayer to quash the order dated 07.06.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Kanpur Dehat on the discharge application of the applicant under Section 239 Cr.P.C. in Case No. 721 of 2014 (State Vs. Vaibhav Nigam) arising out of Case Crime No. 41 of 2014, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, 427 I.P.C. and Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act, Police Station-Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Nagar. 2. Briefly stated facts relevant for disposal of this application are that F.I.R. Case Crime No. 41 of 2014, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, 427 I.P.C. and Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act has been lodged on written complaint of Rakesh Kumar against driver of the vehicle Maruti Registration No.UP78DE6327 alleging therein that on 20.02.2014 at about 4:30 PM the driver of the aforesaid vehicle by his rash and negligent driving collided with Motor Cycle Registration No.UP78DC7624 on which informant's brother Anil Kumar was riding with his father. In this accident both of them sustained serious injury and due to injury sustained in this accident father of the informant died. After investigation I.O. has submitted charge sheet against the applicant Vaibhav Nigam under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, 427 I.P.C. and Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act. 3. The applicant moved application for discharging him under Section 239 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned, learned Court below was of the view that there was sufficient ground to proceed and frame the charges against the applicant under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, 427 I.P.C. and Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act and rejected the application of the applicant. Against the aforesaid order this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The vehicle which he was driving was not involved in this accident. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that Anil Kumar son of the deceased had filed a claim petition No. 783 of 2014 regarding this accident and the same was dismissed on 23.05.2017 in non appearance of the claimant. The vehicle which he was driving was not involved in this accident. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that Anil Kumar son of the deceased had filed a claim petition No. 783 of 2014 regarding this accident and the same was dismissed on 23.05.2017 in non appearance of the claimant. In that claim petition at the top of the first page where parties names were mentioned, the registration number of the offensive vehicle was mentioned as UP74PE6327 (Car) this fact was brought in notice of the Court below but it was not considered and application of the applicant was rejected illegally by the impugned order. 5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the impugned order and submitted that there was sufficient materials to proceed against the applicant and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. On the basis of F.I.R. registered in this case, statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other evidence collected by the I.O., charge sheet against the applicant/accused has been submitted under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A, 427 I.P.C. and Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act. On the basis of evidence collected by the I.O. learned Magistrate has concluded that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the applicant in this case, therefore, application to discharge the applicant was rejected. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that in claim petition No. 783 of 2014 filed by the son of the deceased regarding death of the deceased in this accident which was dismissed due to non appearance of the claimant, at the top of the petition registration number of the offensive vehicle was mentioned as UP74PE6327 (Car) whereas in F.I.R. and evidence collected by the I.O. The registration number of the offensive vehicle is mentioned as UP78DE6327, copy of the aforesaid claim petition is being annexed as Annexure No.3 with affidavit accompanying this application. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that vehicle No. UP78DE6327 was not involved in this accident and charge could not be framed against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this matter was brought before the Court but it was not considered. In State of Orissa Vs. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that vehicle No. UP78DE6327 was not involved in this accident and charge could not be framed against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this matter was brought before the Court but it was not considered. In State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi 2005 (1) SCC 568 it was observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court that at the time of framing of charges only the material produced by the prosecution side can be looked into by the Court but the material produced by the defence cannot be looked into. 10. In case of Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijay Sataredkar & others A.I.R. 2009 SC 1013 it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that ordinarily defence material cannot be looked into by the Court while framing of the charges in view of D.N. Padhi's case (supra), there may be some very rare and exceptional cases where some defence material when shown to the trial Court would convincingly demonstrate that the prosecution version is totally absurd or preposterous, and in such very rare cases the defence material can be looked into by the Court at the time of framing of the charges or taking cognizance. 11. In instant case the aforesaid claim petition which is now not in existence and has been dismissed on 23.05.2017 in non appearance of the claimant, is not such an exceptional defence material demonstrating the prosecution version absurd or preposterous. I have perused the copy of the said claim petition No.783 of 2014 annexed as Annexure no.3 to the affidavit. At the top of first page of the claim petition parties names are mentioned with the registration number of offensive vehicle as UP74PE6327 (Car) but in para 23 of the same petition the registration number of the offensive vehicle is clearly mentioned as UP78DE6327. Therefore, the aforesaid claim petition was not a such type of exceptional defence evidence which was required to be looked into at the time of framing charges. 12. In State of M.P. Vs. S.B. Johari and others A.I.R. 2000 SC 665 it has been observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court that it is settled law that at the stage of framing charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 12. In State of M.P. Vs. S.B. Johari and others A.I.R. 2000 SC 665 it has been observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court that it is settled law that at the stage of framing charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. 13. In case at hand, from perusal of the F.I.R., statement of injured Anil Kumar and other evidence collected by the I.O. there was sufficient material to proceed against the applicant/accused. In view of the above discussion there is no illegality in the impugned order, the application is liable to be dismissed. 14. Consequently prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused. 15. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, dismissed.