Gopal Krishna vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Virendra Vikram Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Shri Vivek Kumar Singh for the complainant. By moving the present application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. the applicant has made prayers that the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 93 of 2012, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427, IPC arising out of case crime no. 55 of 2012, P.S. Doghal, District Baghpat be quashed and further that the orders dated 7.2.2013 and 28.1.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat be quashed. Vide order dated 7.2.2013 the court took cognizance in the matter and vide order dated 28.1.2014 charge was framed against the applicant facing trial in the case.

It has been argued that the cognizance has wrongly been taken under the provisions of Section 190(1)(b), Cr.P.C., hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. So far framing of charge against the applicant is concerned, it has been argued that despite there being lack of evidence charge has been framed. It has also been argued that the applicant is a physically disabled person.

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the application.

Even on the prior occasion the applicant has approached this Court by moving Application U/S. 482 No. 34786 of 2013 with the prayer that the entire proceedings of the case be quashed. This prayer was not attended by this Court and the prayer was rejected though a protection was granted for releasing the applicant on bail.

In any case when the entire proceedings are challenged, it necessary implies that the order of taking cognizance is implied in quashing the proceedings. For the simple reason that unless the cognizance is taken by the Court the case cannot proceed. Thus, the order dated 7.2.2013, which was in existence at the time of the earlier application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. decided on 1.10.2013, has already been considered and declined to be granted by this Court. The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings has also been refused by this Court, hence the two prayers for quashing the order dated 7.2.2013 and quashing the proceedings are not maintainable.

So far the prayer of quashing the order dated 28.1.2014 is concerned, it has been argued that no sufficient evidence for framing the charge u/s 338, IPC is made out.

No argument has been advanced nor is maintainable that no offence at all is made out against the applicant. While framing the charge in a warrant case instituted on police report the court is required to arrive at the finding that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding for framing charge. At this stage the evidence has not be appreciated as it is made done at the time of final decision of the case. The Court having considered the record of the case does not see any reason to hold that any of the charge levelled against the applicant was bad or unfounded. The prayer for quashing the order dated 28.1.2014 also lacks merit and is, hereby, refused. The application is, hereby, rejected.