Mohan Lal and Another State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

Challenge in the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’) is an order dated

10.12.2019, passed in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 2019, State Vs. Mohan Lal and Another by the court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge,

Udham Singh Nagar (for short ‘the case’). By the impugned order, the application for discharge filed by the petitioners was rejected and charge

under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC has been framed against the petitioners. Petitioners also seek to quash the entire proceedings of the case.

Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as hereunder;

An FIR was filed on 06.03.2018 by respondent no.2 against the petitioners under Section 307/34 IPC, according to it the informant is a driver of a

three-wheeler. On 07.01.2018, the three-wheeler was booked by some persons, who took it toward Kanpur road, where the petitioners were waiting

for them. The petitioners alongwith the other persons attacked the informant with sharp-edged weapon and left him as dead. The passer-by inquired

from the informant and then he was admitted to the hospital. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the

petitioners and finally proceedings of the case was initiated.

In the Court an application for discharge was moved, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 10.12.2019 and charge was framed against

the petitioners on 18.01.2020. It is impugned.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that in the year 2014, an FIR was lodged against the informant, in which, the informant was about

to be summoned under Section 307 IPC. The informant perhaps met with an accident on 07.01.2018 and taking advantages of the injuries, he filed

false FIR against the petitioners; petitioners have been falsely implicated; petitioner no.1 was admitted in the hospital in Bareilly on 07.01.2018; on

24.01.2018, brother of the victim had given a report to Police against unknown persons and subsequently, on 07.02.2018, he again gave a report

naming the petitioners; as a counterblast, FIR in the instant case, was lodged after much delay on 06.03.2018. It is argued that, in fact, the entire

family of the victim conspired together to lodge the false FIR against the petitioners. No case is made out against the petitioners and they ought to

have been discharged, but, by rejecting their application learned court below committed an error in the eye of law.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel would argue that all the arguments have been considered by the learned Sessions Judge while deciding

the applications filed by the petitioners; the plea of alibi was not taken by the petitioners in the case and it was taken for the first time before this

Court. There have been injuries on the victim.

This is petition under Section 482 of the Code. The scope is much limited, especially, when the orders framing charge is challenged. Guidelines have

been laid down by the Courts for exercising the jurisdiction. In the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court observed that ‘the power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of section 228 of the Code

should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.’

In the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another v. Central Bureau Of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:

“……the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to

reappreciate the matter……….â€​

It is settled law that the trial should not be stopped at a threshold unless there are exceptional and rare circumstances. A mini trial cannot be

conducted in these proceedings.

In the instant case FIR has been lodged by the victim himself on 06.03.2018 with specific averments therein as to how he was attacked and who

attacked him. According to him, he was in hospital for a long, therefore, FIR could not be lodged earlier. Reference has been made to other reports

given by brother of the victim, one of which is dated 24.01.2018. The Court should not make deeper examination of the material, but, suffice to say,

that it also reports that the victim was attacked by unknown assailants and the victim was not in a position to speak then. A report dated 07.02.2018

lodged by the brother of the victim has also been referred to, which names the assailants.

Insofar as the medical reports of the victim are concerned, again, this Court restrains to make deeper examination, but, the report which is filed as

Annexure No.10 gives history of the victim, when he was admitted in the hospital and according to it, he was found on the road in an unconscious

state. In the same annexure, a reply given under Right to Information Act, 2005 is also enclosed, according to it the victim was treated upon with

regard to the accident. The treatment slip also mentions that it was recorded in an accidental register also.

It is a case of the FIR that after the assault, the victim became unconscious. He was taken to hospital by the passerby. There was none to tell as

to how it happened. Informant was unconscious then.

Subsequently the informant lodged report with all the details. This is what is recorded in the medical report. Insofar as the plea of alibi is concerned, it

is subject to scrutiny at trial. In fact, whatever arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, they are defences that may be

available to the petitioners, once the trial proceeds. The learned Court below examined the matter at the stage of framing of charge and passed a

detailed order. This Court finds no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the instant petition is devoid of merits

and it deserves to be dismissed.

The instant petition is dismissed.