PRAVEEN SINGH AND OTHERS VS STATE OF UP AND ANOTHER

PRAVEEN SINGH AND OTHERS VS STATE OF UP AND ANOTHER

BENCH	MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
COURT	ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	2 ND DECEMBER 2022
CASE TYPE	APPLICATION U/S 482 CrPC NO. – 8755 OF 2022
CITATION	2022 SCC ONLINE ALL 785
PARTY	PRAVEEN SINGH AND OTHERS (APPLICANTS) STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER  (OPPOSITE PARTIES)
ADVOCATES	COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT:  NIPUN SINGH, VIVEK CHAUBEYCOUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY: G.A., AMIT RAI, ATHARVA DIXIT, AUSHIM LUTHRA, IMRAN ULLAH, SANJEEV KUMAR YADAV

FACT OF THE CASE:

Facts placed by the learned counsel for the applicants for the incident alleged to have occurred on 08.11.2021.An FIR was lodged by opposite party no. 2, namely, Pramod Kumar Baliyan, which was registered as Case Crime No. 419 of 2021, under Sections 386, 120B, 326, 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Haldaur, District-Bijnor on 02.12.2021 by way of application filed under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. on 22.11.2021.

As per the case, Pramod Kumar Baliyan aged about 52 years, permanent resident of Village-Murliwala, Police Station-Afzalgarh, District-Bijnor, is practising at Dehradun.

The applicants namely Zubair Ahmed (Applicant No. 4), Praveen Singh (Applicant No. 1), Virendra Singh (Applicant No. 2) used to give cases to the opposite party no. 2 on commission basis since last so many years. On account of lockdown and closure of courts, they could not provide cases on commission basis to Opposite Party No. 2. The aforesaid applicants misbehaved with opposite party no. 2 forcing him to pay advance money to them and when the opposite party no. 2 failed to provide money, they extended life threat to the Opposite Party No.2.  Arun Khanna (applicant no. 3) and co-accused-Ehatsam Ansari also extended help to the aforesaid applicants in extending life threat to the Opposite Party no 2.

In the morning of 08.11.2021, opposite party no. 2 along with one Rakesh Kumar, resident of Village Murliwala, Police Station-Afzalgarh, District-Bijnor was going to Village Nangaljat, at about 05:00 a.m., when the Opposite Party No. 2 reached near Village Bhagawa, he was chased by one Sky Blue Santro Car bearing registration No. UKO7 BA 0170. After stopping the opposite party no. 2, the aforesaid five persons, namely, Jubair (applicant no. 4), resident of Lakhibagh Colony, Dehradun, Praveen Singh (applicant no. 1), resident of Bhagat Singh Colony, Dehradun, Virendra Singh (applicant no. 2), resident of Alaknanda Vidarland No. 1, Nakrauda, Dehradun, Ehatsan Ansari (co-accused), resident of Azad Colony, Near 15 BT, Dehradun and Arun Khanna (applicant no. 3), resident of 31, Chander Nagar, Dehradun, came out of the car and Zubair (applicant no. 4) fired upon the Opposite Party No. 2, which was fortunately missed and then Ehatsam Ansari, after taking the pistol from Zubair again fired upon him after reloading the pistol.

Praveen Singh (applicant no. 1) also assaulted multiple times over the head and chest and also Virendra Singh (applicant no. 2) assaulted the opposite party no. 2 by baseball stick, hitting on his nose, resulting in fracture of his nose bone.On hue and cry being raised by opposite party no. 2, people from nearby, namely Moola Singh son of Balvir Singh, resident of Village Ravti, Rakesh Kumar, Manoj Kumar sons of Shyam Lal, resident of Village NangalJat, Dalvir Singh son of Balraj Singh, resident of Village Agupura, District Bijnor came on the spot. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No. 2 was brought to the Government Hospital, Kotwali Dehat, where he was medically treated and was, later on, referred to District Bijnor.

For the aforesaid incident, an application u/s 156(3) Cr. P.C. was filed before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor on 22.11.2021.

 The court directed the concerned SHO of Police Station-Haldaur to conduct an inquiry and submit the report. The report dated 26.11.2021 was submitted by the concerned SHO, perusal of which goes to show that the villagers of Vill-Bhagawa stated that no such incident had taken place, informing the concerned Inspector that in case, any such incident of using firearm would have taken place, the villagers would have come to know about the same on hearing noise of the firearms.The concerned Magistrate ignoring the said police report directed for registering the case, hence the FIR was registered on 02.12.2021 as Case Crime No. 419 of 2021 against as many as five named accused persons including the present Applicants (PRAVEEN SINGH) and Co-accused Ehatsam Ansari.

ARGUMENTS:

LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:

1. The concerned Magistrate directed the SHO, Police Station-Haldaur to conduct an inquiry and submit a report. Thereafter, the report  submitted by the Investigating Officer on 26.11.2021, shows that no such incident had taken place as narrated in the application u/s 156(3) Cr. P.C. filed by the Opposite Party No. 2.
2.  As per the medical report, Opposite Party No. 2 by himself went to the doctor for his medical examination and there is no whisper as to the role of Rakesh Kumar, who was accompanying the Opposite Party No.2 on motorcycle at the time of incident.

3. As per the supplementary medical report injury no. 5 was found to be grievous in nature and rest of the injuries were found to be simple in nature which is said by Dr. Pramod Kumar in his supplementary medical report.
4. The Investigating Officer during the course of investigation recorded the statements of 15 independent witnesses, who are residents of the nearby villages, where the alleged incident is said to have taken place. The aforesaid witnesses informed the Investigating Officer that no such incidence as said by the opposite party no. 2 had ever taken place as it was not possible that the villagers could not hear the noise of gun shot in the early morning. 
5. Opposite Party no. 2 has filed the present case in order to settle his personal vendetta out of sheer revenge and anguish as applicants and other co accused Ehatsam Ansari Advocate has started their independent practice and disowned themselves from Opposite Party No. 2.
6. The opposite party no. 2 as alleged that he has sustained serious injuries but on another day he was present at District Court, Dehradun. Therefore, it is highly improbable that after having allegedly sustained serious injuries, the opposite party no. 2 is working in the courts at Dehradun
7. He filed multiple cases on Dehradun MACT on 09.11.2021, 10.11.2021, 11.11.2021, 12.11.2021, 15.11.2021, 16.11.2021 and 22.11.2021.

LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

1. Mr. Amit Rai, has opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that the applicants have misled this Court with distorted facts and submissions which have no bearing with the present case.There is no junior senior relationship between the applicant and the complainant/opposite party no. 2.All the accused persons have their different versions for lodging this FIR in question.
2. In FIR it has been given as to applicants 1, 2 and 3 were pursuing their internship with opposite party no. 2, but due to bad behaviour of the opposite party no. 2, they left him and joined applicant no. 4, Jubair for their future internship which prompted the opposite party no. 2 to lodged the FIR in question.However, applicant no. 4 is not a lawyer and it is also strange to believe that why applicant no. 3, who is a lawyer registered in 2013 with bar council of Uttarakhand as claimed by him, will join applicant no. 4 as an intern.
3. He further submits that  There is a criminal history of applicant no. 3 as FIR u/s 117, 323, 332, 341, 353, 427, 504 IPC has been lodged on 12.02.2016 at P.S. Dalanwala, District Dehradun and also the criminal history of Applicant no. 4 as one FIR dated 18.06.2019 u/s 147, 323, 307, 498A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. He APPLICANT NO 2 further submits that the applicants are dreaded criminals having several criminal records and are running away from facing the trial.They have deliberately violated the order of the trial court in the garb of pendency of this instant application.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further submits that the matter is required to be tried by the court having competent jurisdiction in full-fledged manner. Prima Facie, cognizable offence is made out and, therefore, interference of this Court in the present case under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is not warranted.
6. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 states that this Court may not exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. in the present case, and hence the present application is liable to be rejected

LEARNED A.G.A FOR THE STATE : 

1. He has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants.
2. A.G.A. submits that perusal of F.I.R. as well as statements of the witnesses, goes to show that, prima facie case for the alleged offence is made out against the applicants.
3. A.G.A. states that this High Court may not quash the entire criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. at the pre-trial stage, for which he has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. The State of Bihar.
4. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned A.G.A. states that this Court may not exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. in the present case, and hence the present application is liable to be rejected.

ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT:

 May or may not exercise the inherent power of section 482 of Cr PC

.

SECTION 482: It preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

JUDGEMENT:

 In the facts of the present case, where it has been established that the opposite party no. 2 has not approached the Court with clean hands. This Court finds it to be a fit case for exercising power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Keeping in mind that criminal prosecution is a serious matter; it affects the liberty of a person, no greater damage can be done to the reputation of a person than dragging him in a criminal case, continuance of prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law and will be a mental trauma to the applicants, it becomes necessary for this Court to invoke inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. in present facts and circumstances of his case.

 This Court finds a good ground for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.Accordingly, the summoning order dated 07.03.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, District-Bijnor as well as the entire proceedings of F.R. Case No. 63/2021 (Misc. Case No. 87/2022) (Pramod Kumar Baliyan v. Praveen Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 419/2021, under Sections 326, 307, 323, 324, 504, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station-Haldaur, District-Bijnor are hereby quashed.

REFERENCES:

SCC ONLINE

This article is written by ALI MOHD SAMAD of LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN, UTTARANCHAL UNIVERSITY, Intern at LEGAL VIDHIYA