Virendra Pawar vs State of U.P. and Another

K.N. Sinha, J.—The present application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing of the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 3205/9 of 1999, u/s 302/34, I.P.C. police station, Kotwali district Muzaffarnagar.

The brief facts giving rise to this application, are that the informant Sri Virendra Kumar lodged the report on 23.11.1998 at police station, Kotwali, district Muzaffarnagar, which was registered as Case Crime No. 481 of 1998, u/s 302/34, I.P.C. against the applicant and others. The F.I.R. is Annexure-1 to this applicant. A charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and three others. The case of the applicant was separated and the case of remaining accused, namely, Sunil Pratap Sharma alias Toni, Upendra Singh and Raj Kumar alias Mintoo alias Karan Singh were committed to the court of session. Their trials proceeded and no witness supported the case, with the result, the session trial ended in acquittal. The judgment of session trial is Annexure-7 to the application.

The case of the present applicant was separated and remained pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate who has issued warrant against the applicant.

The present application has been filed on the ground that none of the witnesses supported the case against the other accused and the trial ended in acquittal. There was no justification for proceeding against the applicant, as the result would be the same.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and also perused the judgment, F.I.R. charge-sheet and evidence recorded in the trial of other co-accused in Session Trial No. 1285 of 1999 and S.T. No. 560 of 1999.

According to the F.I.R., the applicant and three others descended from a Maruti Car at Ahuja Centre Tourist Hotel and one of them, namely, Raj Kumar alias Mintoo called Mr. Kuldeep. As Mr. Kuldeep came near the car, Raj Kumar alias Mintoo fired on him, who died on spot. The patrol party of police also reached and head constable Rajpal Singh, constable Shrikrishna and Pyare Lal also came on the spot. During the course of trial, informants Virendra Kumar P.W. 1, Nitin Kumar P.W. 2, Prahalad P.W. 3, Constable Driver Harpal Singh, Constable Shrikrishna and Constable Suresh Giri, were examined. None of the witnesses of fact, supported the case, which resulted in acquittal.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that according to charge-sheet, only those witnesses who have been examined are the witnesses against the applicant as well. They have not supported the participation of the main assailant and also the present applicant. Thus, there would be no justification for permitting the trial to continue.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, in which, it has been held that High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can quash criminal proceedings or F.I.R. or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers u/s 482 of the Code.

In this very authority, a reference was made to Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others, , in which it has been held that while exercising inherent power of quashing u/s 482, Cr. P.C., it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features, which appear in a particular case to consider whether, it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.

The above authorities are fully applicable on the fact of the present case as on the same evidence, the main accused and other co-accused have been found to be not guilty and acquitted for the charge. There is hardly any chance for conviction in respect of the present applicant. There would be no use permitting the present proceedings to continue.

Consequently, the application allowed and the proceedings of State v. Virendra Pawar, Case No. 3205 and 9 of 1999 u/s 302/34 is hereby quashed.