Ram Vir and Others vs State of U.P.and Others

M.K. Mittal, J.—This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 57/05 State v. Ram Vir and Ors. Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C.S.T. Act pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Mainpuri.

I have heard Sri Rama Shankar Shukla learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri Bhaiya Ram learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Counteraffidavit and rejoinder have also been exchanged.

The brief facts are that the opposite party No. 2 Lala Ram filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 1012003 alleging that on 30122002 at about 3.00 p.m. Ahibaran was removing the Dhol of the culvert which was being used for flowing of the dirty water of the house of the application and other villagers. The application asked Ahibaran not to do so. He went away threatening to see him. Same day at about 8.00 p.m. Ahibaran alongwith 9 others armed with lathi, danda and illegal weapons, came in a tractor and started abusing. The also used caste denoting words. When applicant asked them not to abuse, the accused fired, However, the application entered the house. The accused also entered the house and there the applicant his wife Chandrakanta were give lathi and danda blows. When Manlal came to save them, he was also beaten. As per the application all the three persons received several injuries. On hearing the noise Budhsen Keshav Ram and other came and saw the incident. The accused went away threatening to kill them. When the informant went to lodge the report constable told him that first the matter would be enquired and then report would be written. Applicant kept waiting but when none came then he gave an application to Superintendent of police but no action was taken and thereafter he filed the application. The case was directed to be registered by the Court. After investigation final report was submitted on 2032003. Thereafter an application was moved by Circle Officer in the Court for returning the final report and for further investigation which was allowed. After investigation, not chargesheet has been submitted.

According to the applicants, the prosecution story is false frivolous and vexatious and the report was lodged only to harass them. It has been contended that the applicants are peace loving persons and that prosecution case as taken, is inherently improbable. Ten persons are alleged to have caused injuries to 3 persons but no injury was received by any one of them. It appears that Lala Ram was medically examined on 2512003 when he himself went for medical examination but the doctor did not find any mark of injury on his body. The two persons allegedly beaten, were not medically examined. According to the applications no incident took place and the case has been lodged under S.C.S.T Act also, only to harass them and the chargesheet is liable to be quashed.

The complainant filed counteraffidavit and alleged that the incident took place on 30th February 2002(should be 30122002) at about 3.00 p.m. At that Ahibaran was uprooting slab of the culvert and when he objected, he went away threatening him. In the same night at about 8.00 p.m. all the accused persons came there with unauthorized weapons in a tractor and abused him. When he opposed abusing, they entered his house and assaulted him with lathi and danda and fired upon him and his wife. He and his wife were seriously injured and at the noise neighbours also came and then accused fled away. Incident was seen by Budhsen, Keshav Ram, Sri Ram and others. In the affidavit the complainant has also mentioned that he might have died as a result of firing as it was aimed at his chest. It has also been contended that his wife and victim Man Lal were medically examined by a private and therefore, he was unable to produce the medical reports.

Learned Counsel for the applicants has contended that the prosecution case is highly improbable and vexatious and false and has been initiated only to harass the applicants. He has further contended that 10 persons are alleged to have given lathi and danda blows the medical report of Lala Ram shows that there was no mark of injury on his body. The other two injured were not medically examined and that for the first time in counteraffidavit it has been alleged that they were examined by a private doctor. In this case the opposite party was directed by order dated 27102006 to file injury reports if any and the learned Counsel for the complainant took one week''s time to file supplementary affidavit for that purpose but no injury have been filed and it shows the falsity of the case. In the rejoinder affidavit, the allegation of the informant as made in counter affidavit that the wife of the informant and Manlal were examined by private doctor, has been specifically denied.

Learned Counsel for the complainant has contended that the accused persons came in the night to the house of the complainant and abused and when objected caused them injuries. He also contended that the chargesheet has been rightly submitted and the proceedings have not been initiated to harass the accused persons and that the prosecution case is not inherently improbable or vexatious. However, he could not give any explanation as to how no injury was received by 3 persons although they were given lathi and danda blows by 10 persons and as per the prosecution case they were severely beaten and serious injuries were received by them. There is also difference in the mode and manner of the incident as alleged in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and as stated in the counteraffidavit.

Learned Counsel for the application has placed reliance on the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1990(2) JIC 997 (SC) : 1992 SCC (Criminal 426), where it has been held that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of the rare cases. Some of the illustrative categories when the power can be exercised as mentioned therein are (1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) where allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd of inherently Improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (3) where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and of where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

In the recent cases also it has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings is to be exercised sparingly but if the prosecution case is inherently improbable of vexatious of false, it can be quashed.

In the instant case the allegations as made show that the complainant''s case is inherently improbable and the allegations as made by him are false and frivolous. Specific allegations have been made that 10 persons beat with lathies and dandas and caused several and serious injuries but it is strange that no injury was found on the person of the complainant by the medical officer and the other two injured were not even medically examined. The complainant made an improvement in the counteraffidavit that these two persons were examined by the private doctor but no details as to who was the private doctor and when and where they were examined have been given. It clearly shows that these two persons also did not receive any injury. In the circumstances the prosecution is frivolous and false and the chargesheet as submitted against the 10 accused is liable to be quashed.

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. That the chargesheet and the criminal proceedings in criminal case 57/05, State v. Ram Vir and Ors., pending in the Court of additional chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Mainpuri, are hereby quashed.