SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Raj Kumar Yadav And 2 Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 August, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 65

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 26756 of 2015

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Yadav And 2 Ors.

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon’ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

Sri M.P. Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

As per office report dated 28.5.2019, service upon opposite party no. 2 has been effected but none has appeared from his side nor any counter affidavit has been file.

Learned A.G.A. does not want to file counter affidavit as this is a complaint case.

The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 26.6.2015 and entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 69 of 2015 (Ramakant Vs. Raj Kumar others), under Section 323, Section452, Section504, Section506 IPC 3(1)(10) S.C./SectionS.T. Act, P.S. Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sant Kabir Nagar.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the present case has been initiated against the accused-applicants as a counter blast because earlier a case under Section 376 IPC was slapped against the opposite party no. 2 for having committed rape of one Nirmala Devi, who was sister of the accused-applicant no. 1 and daughter of the accused-applicant no. 2. The accued applicant no. 3 is neighbour of the applicant nos. 1 and 2. It is no injury case. Charge sheet has been submitted after investigation by police in Case Crime No. 946 of 2015, under Section 376, Section386, Section506 IPC against the opposite party no. 2 on 26.9.2014, thereafter, this false case has been initiated after five months of the occurrence, therefore, this is nothing but a malacious prosecution which needs to be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of quashing of summoning order as well as entire proceedings.

I have gone through the complaint. It is stated in it that the opposite party no. 2 had done ploughing work in the field of accused-applicant no. 1 and for the said work an amount of Rs. 5,000/- had become due. He had also done ploughing work in the field of Bahnoi of the accused-applicant no. 1 for which Rs. 2,000/- had become due and when he had demanded the said amount from the accused applicant no. 1, he avoided paying the same. On 11.9.2014, he had gone to ask for the said money to the house of accused-applicant no. 1 and heated exchange took place on that occasion and accused-applicants after getting annoyed had started beating him and abusing “Chamariya Ki Jat Sale Aaj Ke Bad Yadi Paisa Mangne Aooge to Anjam Bura Hoga”. Thereafter on 13.9.2014, opposite party no. 2 was falsely implicated by the accused-applicants because of their political connection and when the opposite party no. 2 came out of prison on 31.10.2014, he remained unwell for a long time and on 20.1.2015 at about 12:00 noon, he again went to the house of accused-applicant no. 1 asking for the said money and at that time, the accused applicants were not at home and when they came to know that the opposite party no. 2 had come asking for money, the same day accused applicants came to the house of complainant, who was sitting outside his house, and they started abusing him and had started beating him after entering into his house by kicks and fists and again abused “Chamariya Sale Tmhari Himmat Kaisi Ki Tum Hamare Ghar Paisa Mangne Chale Aaye”. Thereafter, his wife Radhika Devi had come there to save him, but accused-applicants had beaten her also and thereafter other witnesses had also arrived there, who saved life of opposite party no. 2. The statements of the complainant has been recorded by the trial court under Section 200 Cr.P.C. which is annexed at page 23 of the paper book as well as of the witnesses i.e. Radhika Devi, who is wife of the opposite party no. 2, and Raj Kumar, another witness of the present occurrence under Section 202 Cr.P.C., their statements have been annexed at page 25 27 of the paper book.

I have gone through the statements of the witnesses as well as the complainant. From the said statements, the corroboration is made of the occurrence which has been stated to have been taken place in the complaint. It cannot be denied on the basis of these statements prima facie a cognizable offence is made out against the accused-applicants. The veracity of the statements of witnesses cannot be tested in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. As regards the theory of counter blast that this case is slapped against the accused-applicants as a counter blast, the same also cannot be adjudged at this stage because as per the opposite party no. 2 he also has taken this plea of false implication in case under Section 376 IPC because of the demand made by him of the outstanding dues of Rs. 7,000/- from the accused-applicant no. 1, although charge sheet had been submitted in the said case. Matter involves appreciation of evidence in the present case which is possible only after full trial. I do not see any justification to interfere in the present case at this stage.

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 SectionCr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of SectionR. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.

Order Date :- 21.8.2019

A.P. Pandey

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation