Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 779 (ALL)

Menaj @ Mahnaj v. State of U. P.

2021-08-03

RAJEEV MISRA

body2021
JUDGMENT : RAJEEV MISRA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajpal Singh, learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. 2. Perused the record. 3. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge sheet dated 11.07.2020 submitted in Case Crime No. 198 of 2019, under Section 419, 420, 506, 354 Ka IPC, P.S. Ghazipur, District Fatehpur, Cognizance Taking Order dated 19.01.2021 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC, Fatehpur upon aforesaid charge sheet as well as entire proceedings of consequential Criminal Case No. 109 of 2021 (State vs. Menaj @ Mahnaj), arising out of above mentioned Case Crime number, now pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/FTC, Fatehpur. 4. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in above mentioned Case Crime number. It is then contended that no offence under any of the charging Section is made out against applicants. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. No offence as alleged has been committed by applicant. As such not only the prosecution of applicant is false, but there is no material also to support the prosecution of applicant. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. contends that after registration of F.I.R. dated 19.7.2019, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of above mentioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, statement of first informant/opposite party 2 and that of her witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who have supported the prosecution story. Subsequently, statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein prosecutrix has supported the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. On the basis of material collected by Investigating Officer, a charge sheet dated 11.7.2020 has been submitted against applicant. Perusal of charge-sheet goes to show that as many as 8 prosecution witnesses have been nominated. On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A. contends that at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant is being falsely prosecuted or there is no material to support the prosecution of applicant. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus urged that no interference is warranted in present application. 6. Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and from perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus urged that no interference is warranted in present application. 6. Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and from perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed defence of the applicants, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. This Court cannot appraise and appreciate evidence to record a finding one way or the other. At this stage only prime facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and Another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.