HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 25361 of 2019
Applicant :- Gourav Saxena And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sharad Sharma,Vikrant Pandey
Hon’ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 SectionCr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of the criminal case no. 1606 of 2019, SectionState vs. Gourav Saxena and others, as well as charge sheet dated 14.4.2019 submitted in Case Crime No. 123 of 2019, under Sections 452, Section323, Section504, Section506, Section307 I.P.C., P.S.- Civil Lines, District- Rampur pending in the court of C.J.M., Rampur including the cognizance order dated 4.5.2019.
Heard applicants’ counsel and learned AGA.
Entire record has been perused.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that as the first informant belongs to the Chamber of Advocate Harsh Gupta and therefore, at his behest this false F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicants because of matrimonial dispute that is existing in between the son of Advocate Harsh Gupta and the sister of the applicant no. 1Gourav Saxena. All the allegations have been denied and innocence has been pleaded. It was also submitted that actually the sister of the applicant no. 1 was ill-treated by Harsh Gupta and his family members and she was ousted from her house and is living with her parents and in that connection an application was also filed before the concerned police station. Submission is that annoyed by the same Harsh Gupta has cooked up the present false story through the help of his clerk. Contention is that the evidence collected by the investigation contains contradictions which renders the evidence unworthy of reliance. Certain other contentions have also been raised by the applicants’ counsel but all of them relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court’s decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
Through a catena of decisions given by Hon’ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal’s case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of SectionCr.P.C. or SectionArticle-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
The perusal of the F.I.R. in question discloses the allegations to the following effect. The first informant is working as a clerk in the Chamber of one Advocate Harsh Gupta. The son of aforesaid Harsh Gupta namely Saharsh Gupta is having a matrimonial dispute with his wife and a divorce petition has been filed in that regard which is pending. On the date fixed in the case the wife of Saharsh Gupta namely Smt. Anshika Gupta, her brother Gourav Saxena@Shanu along with one another Dheeraj Saxena@Banti had come in that connection in the court. The first informant had gone to find out the date in the court where he had seen the aforesaid people talking with each other. On the day of occurrence at about 12.00 hours when the first informant had gone to bring a book the aforesaid Gourav Saxena@Shanu and Dheeraj Saxena@Banti came over there chasing the first informant and barged into the house and made a criminal assault upon him and hurled filthy abuses. Gourav Saxena@Shanu put a pistol on his and threatened to cause his death.When the first informant tried to wriggle out and run away the accused Gourav Saxena @Shanu fired upon him but he got a narrow escape. Seeing this the son of the informant Sunny and a number of other persons came over there on which the accused fled away extending threats that in case the first informant would come to attend on dates he would be eliminated.
The submissions made by the applicants’ learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court’s process either.
The application therefore stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.7.2019