JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery 1. Above referred both applications are arising out of same charge sheet, therefore, with consent of learned counsel for parties, are being decided by a common judgment. 2. Applicant Tanmay Pandey (Application No. 1213 of 2020) has declared himself to be an employee of Collectorate, Azamgarh, however, name of post and designation has not been disclosed in application or in any other material. Surprisingly, the affidavit sworn in support of application is of one Shiv Shankar declaring himself to be a family friend without disclosing that as to why applicant himself has not sworn the affidavit. The declaration made in last paragraph of affidavit declares that contents of paragraph of application were either true to personal knowledge of deponent or on basis of record or as informed by deponent. There is no declaration that source of information of deponent was the applicant. Therefore, on face of it, affidavit is legally not duly sworn and present application could be rejected for said legal error, however, still considering that present application is pending for last 4 years and applicant is enjoying interim order as well as learned Advocates for parties have placed submission on fact and legal issues, therefore, Court proceeds to decide the same on merit. 3. Applicants Rajesh Kumar Maurya and Shailesh Upadhyay (Application No. 18760 of 2022) have also declared themselves to be government employees, however, their designation or posts have also not been disclosed either in the application or in any other document. For reference, relevant part of paragraph 28, 29 and 30 of affidavit are being quoted below :- “28. That the applicants till date have failed to cull out exact reasons and motive of informant in falsely implicating him however he feels and has a guess that since the parties were undergoing litigation before the revenue Court in Collectorate, Azamgarh and whereas the applicants are an employee in Collectorate, Azamgarh, it appears that the informant has falsely implicated the applicants as accused in the F.I.R. that has led to the impugned charge sheet on his misplaced apprehension and understanding that the applicants are conniving with parties at litigation with him and is helping them in the revenue proceedings before the Revenue Court, Azamgarh. 29. 29. That at the cost of repetition it is stated that the applicants have absolutely got no concern with Gata No.196 or structure standing thereon or with the litigations in Revenue as well as Civil Court in respect of the said property and therefore the applicants who is a Government Employee have been unnecessarily tagged in as accused by the informant and have been thus subjected to undue harassment and victimization. 30. That therefore any coercive proceeding in view of impugned charge sheet and consequent proceedings of the court below sourced in F.I.R. which proceeds on malice shall ruin the future of applicants, particularly in view of the fact that he is a Government Employee.” 4. Above declaration on face of it, appears to be false being not supported by any document, therefore, this application could be rejected only on above referred legal error, however, since this application is pending for last 2 years, and applicants are enjoying interim order as well as rival submissions have been placed, therefore, Court proceeds to decide it also on merit. 5. These cases are arising out of an FIR lodged by complainant Badri Prasad Gupta against 8 named accused including present applicants on 23.12.2016 at 20.25 Hours alleging that all accused have formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common intention to demolish house of complainant, came at place of occurrence at about 7.30 Hours and demolished the house with help of a JCB machine and when complainant and others came, accused persons extended threats and abused also. It was further alleged that a call was made on Dial 100 and it was responded also and only thereafter, the accused persons ran away without taking the JCB, which was later on confiscated by the police. During investigation, statements of complainant and others were recorded and finally a charge sheet being No.01 was filed on 14.08.2017 against 5 named accused including these applicants. Another charge sheet was filed against other accused viz., Ashutosh also. Involvement of two other named accused was found false. 6. During investigation, statements of complainant and others were recorded and finally a charge sheet being No.01 was filed on 14.08.2017 against 5 named accused including these applicants. Another charge sheet was filed against other accused viz., Ashutosh also. Involvement of two other named accused was found false. 6. The crux of argument of S/Sri Rahul Mishra and Chandra Kumar Rai, learned Advocates for applicants was that applicant Tanmay Pandey who has declared himself to be a government employee at Collectorate, Azamgarh as well as other two applicants Rajesh Kumar Maurya and Shailesh Upadhyay, who have also declared themselves to be government employees are not concerned with alleged crime as well as civil litigations between rival parties are also pending before Revenue Court. 7. Learned Advocates have submitted that reason for their false implication appears to be that some civil dispute was pending before Revenue Court also, therefore, in order to put pressure on applicants and to provide favour. 8. Learned Advocates have also submitted that involvement of some of named accused were found false, therefore, it appears that FIR was lodged with exaggerated facts. 9. Learned Advocates have referred contents of civil dispute pending between complainant and other party for injunction in regard to plot in question, however, no injunction was granted. 10. Learned Advocates have also referred that an application was moved by one of named accused to recover the CCTV footage installed around place of occurrence, however, no finding was recorded of the footage. CCTV footage are also not on record. The I.O. has not taken photographs of debris or demolished structure. Statement of police officers who came at the place of occurrence in response to Dial 100 have also not been recorded though some police officers are proposed witnesses in the charge sheet. This Court has earlier directed to place CCTV footage on record, however, it was not complied with. 11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Himanshu Shekhar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have supported the outcome of investigation, that it was based on statement of complainant and other witnesses. They have also submitted that it was a fair investigation since involvement of some named accused was not found to be true. 12. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 13. They have also submitted that it was a fair investigation since involvement of some named accused was not found to be true. 12. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 13. In order to appreciate rival submissions, contents of FIR, Majid Bayan, statement of complainant, statement of Smt. Shipra Baranawal, wife of complainant and statement of Ambrish Kumar who are cited as proposed witness in charge sheet are reproduced below :- 14. As referred above, contents of FIR and statement of witnesses are appeared to have stated similar version of alleged occurrence. Alleged occurrence took place in public view and statement of some independent witnesses were also recorded, however, they have not named all accused persons though have submitted that demolition took place. 15. In order to quash any criminal proceeding or charge sheet, Court has to invoke inherent powers of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to consider that whether on basis of material collected during investigation, either no case is made out or on basis of material available, it could be a case of absolutely false implication i.e. criminal proceeding was initiated to wrecking vengeance. 16. Learned Advocates for applicants have assigned reasons for false implication of applicants that they are government employees and some litigation are pending in Revenue Court, therefore, they have been falsely implicated in criminal case. However, except details of one case i.e. civil dispute, no other detail of case pending before Revenue Court is placed on record, except some reports, however, they could not support the plea of false implication. There is no valid reason for their false implication, therefore, argument of false implication is hereby rejected. 17. Now the Court proceeds to consider whether on basis of evidence collected during investigation, a prima facie case is found against applicants or not. It is consistent case of complainant that a demolition took place on date of occurrence with help of JCB machine which was confiscated also. There is no denial of it on behalf of applicants. Witnesses in their respective statements have named applicants to be a part of unlawful assembly. Even independent witnesses though not named the accused persons but have corroborated so much as that demolition took place. Presence of applicants and other accused are prima facie established. 18. There is no denial of it on behalf of applicants. Witnesses in their respective statements have named applicants to be a part of unlawful assembly. Even independent witnesses though not named the accused persons but have corroborated so much as that demolition took place. Presence of applicants and other accused are prima facie established. 18. At the stage of cognizance of an offence and to summon accused and others, trial Court is not bound to look whether there was any motive with applicants or accused persons to commit offence. The Court has to consider whether on basis of evidence collected during investigation, there is a prima facie case against applicants or not and as referred above, on basis of evidence collected during investigation, there is a prima facie case against them. 19. So far as collection of CCTV footage is concerned, it may be a lacunae on behalf of Investigating Officer but it would not be sufficient to hold that no occurrence took place or applicants were not present since there is no denial that police came on call on Dial 100 and a JCB machine was confiscated from place of occurrence. The Court has already rejected submission of false implication in earlier paragraphs. It is not a case where a civil dispute is being given a criminal colour since accused are not parties in civil dispute. Complainant could not get any benefit for making false implication of applicants and others. 20. There is merit in argument of learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party that a fair investigation was conducted and involvement of some of named accused in FIR were found false. At this stage, to cause interference with a legally initiated criminal proceedings would amount to cause it a sudden death as well as at this stage, the Court cannot conduct a mini trial. 21. Aforesaid observations would have support from a judgment of Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 379 and its relevant paragraphs are quoted below :- “10. 21. Aforesaid observations would have support from a judgment of Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 379 and its relevant paragraphs are quoted below :- “10. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not”. 11. One another reason pointed by the High Court is that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the investigation was handed over to the CBI pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. That thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have been chargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the High Court has erred in observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material collected during the course of the investigation, which warranted the accused to be tried. 12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, when the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings and applying the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions on exercise of the powers at the stage of discharge and/or quashing the criminal proceedings, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 22. In aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with charge sheet dated 14.08.2017, cognizance order dated 16.01.2019 as well as summoning order dated 18.11.2019, therefore, these applications are rejected and interim orders passed therein are vacated. 23. Trial Court is directed to proceed further in Case No. 843 of 2019 (State vs. Rajesh Kumar Maurya and others) pending before Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh in accordance with law. 24. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.