# Bindu & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 760
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-10
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 21174 of 2022
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bindu-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50017
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482-After lodging
of the FIR-I.O. submitted the charge sheetwitnesses have supported prosecution versioncorroborated
by
medical
evidence-criminal
proceedings cannot be cancelled lightly and
inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be
exercise.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

## Text

760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
period of three weeks from today. Such
cost has to be imposed to let the parties (in
this case) in particular and the society in
general know that the courts cannot remain
a mute spectator to unscrupulous and errant
behaviour of certain persons. A society that
will allow its members to misuse its courts,
will ultimately suffer and pay a huge cost.
Litigants, both genuine and bogus, will
always continue to stand in a common
queue. The courts have no mechanism to
pre-identify and distinguish between the
genuine and the bogus litigants. That
differentiation emerges only after the
hearing is concluded in any case and
hearing requires time. In fact, even if the
courts were to take punitive action against a
bogus litigant, then, being bound by rules
of procedure and fairness, such cases are
likely to take more time than a case of two
genuine litigants.

24. In such circumstances, though no
useful purpose would be served in allowing
the prosecution to continue any further,
however, no firm conclusion may be
reached, at this stage, as to complete falsity
of the allegations made against the
applicants. The present Section 482 Cr.P.C.
application thus stands allowed, subject
however to payment of cost of Rs. 12,500/-
(2,500 on each party) to be deposited
before the High Court Legal Services
Committee, Allahabad, within a period of
three weeks from today.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 760
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 21174 of 2022
Bindu & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Madhaw Prasad

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Rajnish Shukla

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482-After lodging
of the FIR-I.O. submitted the charge sheetwitnesses have supported prosecution versioncorroborated
by
medical
evidence-criminal
proceedings cannot be cancelled lightly and
inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be
exercise.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Madhaw Prasad, learned
counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajnish
Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482
CrPC has been moved to quash the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.124217
of 2021 (State Vs. Bindu Chaudhary and
others) arising out of Case Crime No.77 of
2021, under Sections 323, 504, 308 IPC,
Police
Station
Compierganj,
District
Gorakhpur pending in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate-III, Gorakhpur as well as charge
sheet dated 08.08.2021 and also NBW
dated 05.04.2022 issued against applicant
no.1.

3. In brief, facts of the case are that
opposite party no.2, Sanjay Kumar lodged
an NCR on 01.04.2021 about the incident
dated 09.03.2021 that on account of old
enmity applicants accused had beaten him
4 All. Bindu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
761
by lathi-danda and caused several injuries
to him. He was medically examined on the
same day at 11:40 a.m. in which the doctor
found three injuries of complaint of pain
and one injury of lacerated wound on the
top of head, 12 cm above of left ear which
was kept in observation.

4. A CT scan was done of opposite
party no.2 in which hemorrhagic contusion
was seen in left high frontal region and
fracture of outer table of left frontal bone
was also seen. Finally head injury was
concluded and thereafter the present FIR
has been lodged under Sections 323, 504,
308 IPC. The bail application of applicant
nos.2 to 4 had been rejected by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2,
Gorakhpur. After investigation charge sheet
has been submitted in the aforesaid sections
in which applicant nos.2 to 4 appeared and
summon was issued for presence of
applicant no.1.

5. By way of this petition the
applicants have sought aforementioned
remedy and have taken ground that
applicant no.1 has also lodged an NCR
No.105 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504
IPC in the concerned police station on
09.03.2021 at 12:38 p.m. against the
villagers but not against opposite party
no.2. The allegations therein are that due to
old enmity, he was abused, beaten with
lathi-danda whereby he received much
injuries on his body. The applicants and
opposite party no.2 had been arrested by
the concerned police station under Sections
151, 107, 116 CrPC on 09.03.2021 at 02:50
p.m. and the concerned police submitted
challani
report
dated
09.03.2021
in
Criminal Case No.1736 of 2021 (State Vs.
Bindu Kumar and others) and in Case
No.17371 of 2021 (State Vs. Sanjay Kumar
and others) pending in the Court of SDM,
Campierganj, Gorakhpur, under Sections
107, 116, 151 CrPC which are still
pending. In the reports it is stated that no
incident happened on 09.03.2021 and only
on apprehension of the incident police had
arrested them.

6. Opposite party no.2 has been
medically examined by the CMO and CT
scan of head has been done on 12.03.2021
without mentioning any time. On the basis
of injury report and CT scan report Section
308 IPC has been added to the NCR
No.104 of 2021 and the NCR has been
converted into FIR No.77 of 2021, under
Sections 323, 504 and 308 IPC on
22.03.2022 without showing the place of
occurrence.

7. The courts below have rejected the
bail applications seeing the injury report.
Both the reports (challani and injury)
contradict each other and prove that the
case is false and abuse of process of the
court. It is impossible to write the
application by opposite party no.2 having
such injury as brain haemorrhage and he
was arrested in connection of Sections 107,
116 and 151 CrPC. The investigating
officer has recorded the statement of
opposite party no.2 on 01.04.2021 and
evidence of two witnesses Basmati and
Kishlawati on 20.04.2021. The witnesses
have not disclosed the place of occurrence.
The investigating officer has prepared the
site plan on 22.03.2021 which is false and
fabricated. The investigating officer has
recovered a lathi from applicant no.4,
Ranjeet after three months later of the
incident on 11.06.2021. The recovery is
false because there is no bush around the
applicant's house and the recovered lathi is
unknown to the applicant no.4. The I.O. has
submitted the false charge sheet based on
imaginary story. NBW has been issued
762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against applicant no.1, Bindu and all the
applicants are facing trial. After submission
of charge sheet cognizance has been taken
and NBW has been issued against him

8. First of all, opposite party no.2
forced the applicants to not press the civil
suit no.297 of 2021 (Jairam and others Vs.
Sanjay Kumar and others) pending in the
court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-III,
Gorakhpur but when he failed, he wanted
to compromise the civil suit but when he
again failed then he lodged this false
NCR/FIR. There is delay of 13 days in
lodging the FIR. As per challani report no
incident has taken place on 09.03.2021.
Two proceedings cannot ran for the same
offence. One in the Court of SDM and
another in the Court of Judicial Magistrate
and it is in violation of Article 20(2) of the
Constitution of India. Hence, the entire
proceedings be quashed.

9. By way of supplementary affidavit
it has been clarified that the name of
applicant no.4 is "Ranjeet" not "Ramjeet".

10.

Counter
affidavit
dated
14.09.2022 has been filed by opposite party
no.2 denying the averments and allegations
of the instant petition and has been averred
that NCR has been converted into FIR after
medical report. Witnesses have supported
the prosecution version. It is also supported
by the medical report and thereafter charge
sheet has been filed. The application is
devoid of merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

11. Applicants have filed a rejoinder
affidavit dated 19.09.2022 denying the
averments
of
counter
affidavit
and
affirming the averments of this petition.

12. Heard and perused the record.

13. From perusal of the record it
transpires that the applicants have taken
following grounds:

(i) Opposite party no.2 has falsely
implicated the applicants for pressurizing to
enter into compromise in respect of Civil
Suit No.297 of 2021.

(ii) Neither in the FIR nor in the
evidence of the witnesses there is any
averment or evidence regarding place of
occurrence.

(iii) If opposite party no.2 was so
injured, it was not possible for him to write
the complaint.

(iv) As per proceedings under
Sections 107, 116, 151 CrPC there was no
injury to opposite party no.2. Hence, in
view of that also the version of opposite
party no.2, evidence and medical report are
false and fabricated.

(v) There is undue delay in
lodging the FIR.

14. This application would be decided
as under.

15(i). There is no previous version or
evidence that opposite party no.2 has ever
pressurized the applicants to compromise
the civil case even in his NCR it has not
been written that on the pretext of
compromise opposite party no.2 and other
accused persons attacked upon applicant
no.1 and caused severe injuries. In his NCR
a similar name Sanju son of Hari Ram has
been mentioned as one of the accused. Here
opposite party no.2 is Sanjay Kumar son of
Sriram. However, from the NCR lodged by
applicant no.1 it has been established that
on 09.03.2021 at about 09:00 a.m. the
4 All. Bindu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
763
incident had taken place as alleged by
opposite party no.2. Hence, at this stage it
cannot be concluded that opposite party
no.2 was pressurizing applicant no.1 for
compromising the civil suit.

16(ii). Certainly in the NCR lodged
by opposite party no.2 no place of
occurrence has been mentioned but from its
perusal it is very much clear that the
incident had taken place in the concerned
village. It is also true that after conversion
of NCR into FIR there is no reference of
place of occurrence in FIR. However, on
the pointing of applicants, site plan has
been prepared by the I.O. where the place
of occurrence has been shown to be the
patta land of opposite party no.2, Sanjay.
An FIR is not an encyclopedia. It is only a
mode to accelerate the police machinery to
come into motion. If place of occurrence,
name of the witnesses or even some
accused persons have been left, the same is
not fatal for the prosecution. Hence, this
argument is also rejected.

17(iii). The next argument of the
applicants is that if opposite party no.2 was
so injured how he wrote the complaint.
According to this Court, there is no
evidence that at the time of writing
NCR/FIR opposite party no.2 was bed
ridden or was unable to write complaint
himself. Some patients remain mobile even
during the course of treatment. It is not the
case of prosecution that opposite party no.2
was bed ridden or unconscious or his hand
was so badly injured that he was unable to
write the complaint. Hence, this argument
is also rejected.

18(iv). So far as the fourth argument
is concerned it is very much clear from the
report of SI Bismillah Khan that both the
parties were adamant to fight with each
other and were not ready to keep calm and
were adamant to kill each other and also
threatened to see in future. There was
apprehension of commission of cognizable
offence hence Bindu, Ranjeet and Sujeet
from the applicants side and Sanjay and
Jitendra Kumar from the side of opposite
party no.2 were booked under Section 151
CrPC on 09.03.2021 at about 02:50 p.m.

19. Generally it is seen that police
avoids lodging the NCR/FIR to avoid
increasement of crime numbers of their
police station. Therefore, they do not like to
register the case under the Indian Penal
Code. If opposite party no.2 taken in police
station and he was medically examined on
12.03.2021, certainly he would be in police
custody if he would not have been released
on bail. Challani under Sections 107, 116
and 151 CrPC is not the basis to judge the
credibility of the fact that opposite party
no.2 was not beaten by the applicants
because in due course of business he has
been
examined
in
District
Hospital,
Gorakhpur and has also undergone to CT
scan in which the aforesaid injury has been
found. At this juncture only on the basis of
challani report under Sections 107, 116 and
151 CrPC it cannot be concluded that the
injury, the CT scan report, conversion of
NCR into FIR and after due investigation
submission of charge sheet and taking
cognizance by the concerned Magistrate,
all are false and forged and without any
basis.

20. Opposite party no.2 has filed the
statement of Dr. Vijay Kumar, Radiologist
in which he has stated that he found head
injury as described above in CT scan. He
has confirmed his signature on the report.
On the basis of above discussion this
argument of counsel for the applicants is
also rejected.
764 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21(v). Certainly there is delay in
lodging the FIR but it appears that since
proceedings under Sections 107, 116 and
151 CrPC had been initiated by the
concerned police and opposite party no.2
would have been busy in his treatment and
getting the legal recourse in respect of
Sections 107, 116 and 151 CrPC hence
mere delay in lodging the FIR is not the
sole
ground
to quash
the
case
of
prosecution. Hence, this argument is also
rejected.

22. On the basis of above discussion
this Court is of the view that there is no
material substance in the argument of the
applicants. After lodging the FIR, the I.O. has
submitted the charge sheet under Sections
323, 504 and 308 IPC. The witnesses have
supported the prosecution version which has
also been corroborated by the medical
evidence. On the one hand where the police is
not showing any injury to either of the parties
even to applicant no.1, Bindu also, on the
other hand applicant no.1, Bindu himself
accepts that injuries had been caused to him
and the I.O. of the concerned police station is
admitting that an attempt to cause homicidal
death has been committed by the applicants.

23. Criminal proceedings, charge
sheet and the cognizance order cannot be
cancelled lightly and inherent power under
Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised if
Court does not find that the charge-sheet
and the entire criminal proceeding is the
abuse of process of Court or there is any
need to secure the ends of justice or there is
any necessity to give effect to any order
under the Code by implication of Section
482 CrPC.

24. The present petition under Section
482 CrPC is devoid of merit. Justice
requires complete trial of the matter to
ascertain the truth. Hence, the present
petition is dismissed
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 764
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 22789 of 2022

Vishram & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Saurabh Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

F.I.R. lodged after delay -allege dowry deathunder section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court cannot
examine the correctness of the allegations-to be
decided by the Trial court-power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
to be exercised in exceptional cases-death
within seven years of marriage-unnatural deathat in law's place.

Application rejected. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Haryana & ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors. reported
in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335

2. Ramveer Upadhyay & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 396

3. St. of Andhra Pradesh Vs Gourishetty Mahesh
& ors. (2010) 11 SCC 226

4. R.P. Kapur Vs St. of Pun. AIR 1960 SC
866

5. SC 866 & St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal 1992
SCC(Cr.) 426