Court No. - 5 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 746 of 2009 Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Shree Chandra Misra,Nripendra Misra Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate,S.S. Chaubey Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the
State.
Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have already been exchanged.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing
summoning order dated 11.2.2009 along with charge sheet filed by police
after investigation in case crime no. 41 of 2008 under sections 323, 504, 506
I.P.C. and 3 (i) (x) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.- Huzurpur, District- Bahraich.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the report of
non cognizable offence punishable for the offences under sections 323, 504,
506 I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioner and there was nothing in the
report regarding the allegation on the basis of which offence under section 3
(i) (x) of SC/ST Act can be said to have been made out. He further submitted
that first informant in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has not stated
any word relating to caste to make out a case against applicant for the offence
under section 3 (i) (x) of SC/ST Act and the police after investigating the
case, submitted charge sheet for the offence punishable under sections 323,
504, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (i)(x) of SC/ST Act and as such in view of the above, it
should be quashed and the summoning order passed on the basis of said
charge sheet should also be set aside.
Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 opposed the petition by
contending that the petitioner has not come with clean hand as he has not
filed the complete proceeding of investigation. It has further been submitted
that in Annexures CA-1 and CA-2 annexed with the counter affidavit, there
are materials against the petitioner that the petitioner had also committed
offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) SC/ST Act as he had uttered the
words relating to caste of the informant and as such it is not a case to quash
the charge sheet.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
It reveals from the perusal of the record that the detailed investigation was
done by the police. The statement of several witnesses were recorded by the
Investigation Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. There are allegations that
applicant had also committed offence under section 3 (I) (x) SC/ST Act. The
fact that this offence is not made out against applicant is a controversial
question, which cannot be decided at this stage. The applicant is at liberty to
raise this question before the court below at an appropriate stage. The charge
sheet cannot be quashed. Furthermore, there appears no sufficient ground to
interfere in the matter.
In the end, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer for
expeditious disposal of the bail application in case the applicant surrenders
before the court below. No doubt it is the right of everyone that his bail
application be disposed of expeditiously.
It is therefore, provided that if the petitioner surrenders before the court below
within fifteen days and moves application for his bail, the same shall be
considered and disposed of by the courts below, expeditiously in the light of
the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Amrawati and
another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 CBC page 705.
With the aforesaid direction/observation, this petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 14.7.2010
Mahesh