Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 9315 of 2021
Applicant :- Shivam Gupta
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging charge sheet dated 5.2.2021, submitted in Case Crime No. 0744 of 2020, under Section 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri and Summoning Order dated 14.2.2021, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri in consequential Case No. 611 of 2021 (State Vs. Shivam Gupta), under section 498-A, 323 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned case, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is husband of informant-opposite party-2. However, applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. Learned counsel for applicant next invited attention of Court to the statement of first informant as recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., On the basis of above, he contends that there are inherent contradictions in prosecution case as unfolded in F.I.R and statement of first informant-opposite party-2. He next submits that charge-sheet so submitted is not the out come of free and fair investigation. On the aforesaid premise, it is thus urged that impugned charge-sheet as well as summoning order passed by Court below cannot be sustained and therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this Application. He submits that informant-opposite party-2 lodged an F.I.R. dated 1.1.2020, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0744 of 2020, under Section 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely, Shivam (husband) Ramanand (father-in-law), Shalini (mother-in-law) and Divya (Nanad) of informant-opposite party-2 were nominated as named accused. However, Police upon investigation of above mentioned case crime number has exculpated three of the named accused. The charge sheet has been submitted only against applicant. It is thus urged by learned A.G.A. that in view of above, it cannot be said that Investigation is neither free nor fair. Learned A.G.A. further contends that first informant in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R. In the charge sheet submitted by Police as many as 21 prosecution witnesses have been nominated. Out of 21 prosecution witnesses, so nominated, in the charge-sheet, the prosecution witnesses of fact have supported the F.I.R. Consequently, no good ground exists to quash the charge sheet or the Summoning Order passed by Court below, as prima facie case is made out against applicant.
Having heard learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for Stateand upon 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 applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed defence of the applicant, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot appraise or appreciate evidence, as such an exercise can be undertaken only by trial court. 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 v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)283.
In view of above, application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.7.2021