[ad_1]
Allahabad High Court
Ravi Tiwari And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 April, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56977 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5775 of 2025 Applicant :- Ravi Tiwari And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Monu Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Mr. Amar Nath Tiwari, Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 has filed vakalatnama in the Court today, which is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Monu Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Amar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 06.06.2024 along with Cognizance order dated 04.12.2024 and the entire Criminal proceedings of Case No.1142 of 2024 (State vs. Ravi Tiwari and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.0114 of 2024, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 352, 452, 308, 336, 427 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(?) & 3(1)(?) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Turkpatti, District- Kushinagar at Padrauna, pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kushinagar at Padrauna.
Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged by opposite party no.2 against 9 named accused including the applicants with the allegations that when the brother of opposite party no.2 namely Prem was coming to his house on his vehicle, the alleged accused Ravi and Bholu coming on their bullet motorcycle overtook the vehicle of Prem and tried to snatch his mobile and motorcycle. He was assaulted by leg, punches, fist as well as belt. Prem managed to run away from there, saving his life. The alleged accused persons reached the house of Prem with common intention having lathi, danda, iron rod and fighter auzar entered in hands and after using caste indicative language, they abused and assaulted the opposite party no.2 in which the opposite party no.2 and his family members sustained injuries. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and the applicants have been summoned.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. He further contends that no such incident took place. The injuries as sustained by the opposite party no.2 and his family members are manufactured. The present FIR has been lodged as a counter blast to the FIR lodged on 12.06.2024 by the applicant no.1-Ravi Tiwari against Prem and others for the incident dated 26.03.2024 in order to exert pressure upon the applicants. He also submits that the caste indicative words have been used in the house of opposite party no.2 which is not used in public view, therefore, no offence under the relevant sections is made out against the applicants. He further submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He, therefore, submits that the charge-sheet, cognizance order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA submit that there is no illegality in the summoning/cognizance order as the charge sheet has been submitted on the basis of investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. as done by the Investigating Officer after taking into consideration the statements of charge sheet witnesses from where prima facia offence is made out. It is an admitted case that for the incident dated 26.03.2024 an FIR has been lodged from the side of the applicants also but it is subsequent to the present FIR, therefore, the incident is admitted and the injuries have been sustained by both the sides.
He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicants’ counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicants for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned A.G.A. has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants’ learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be 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. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:-
(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866,
(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335,
(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,
(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122,
(v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682,
(vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454,
(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and lastly
(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143.
In view of the aforesaid, 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 impugned charge-sheet dated 06.06.2024 and cognizance order dated 04.12.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court’s process at this pre-trial stage.
However, it is provided that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the applicants may appear before the court below and apply for bail within three weeks from today. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application of the applicants expeditiously, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the informant, keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicants surrenders and applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, he does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the above observations, this application stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 17.4.2025
Kalp Nath Singh
[ad_2]
Source link