# Munnanul Haq & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties 238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 237
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-04
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 46964 of 2013
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/munnanul-haq-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-238-indian-law-reports-45461
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 482 & Indian Penal Code, 1860Sections 308/34, 323/34, 324/34, 504,
506-application-cross-case-challenge
toframing of charges-assault was with
regard to dispute of landed propertyassault was made by lathi, danda and
tabbal-both injured sustained wound over
skull-opinion
of
medical
officer
also
supported that the injuries could be fatalseat and size of injuries was of kind that
one injured person was unconscioushence, at the time of framing of charge,
the evidences brought by prosecution on
record, is to be taken into considerationthe
court
in
exercise
of
inherent
jurisdiction is not expected to make
comment upon factual aspects because
the same remains within the domain of
trial.(Para 2 to 7)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

12 All. Munnanul Haq & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
237
that any of the accused tried to deceive him either
by making a false or misleading representation or
by any other action or omission, nor is it his case
that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest
inducement to deliver any property or to consent
to the retention thereof by any person or to
intentionally induce him to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if he
were not so deceived. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the third applicant by the act of executing sale
deeds in favour of the Degree College deceived
the complainant in any manner. The purchase of
the property by the third applicant in government
auction and thereafter transferring it to the Degree
College, do not constitute the ingredients of the
offence of forgery.

27. Insofar as the criminal prosecution
with regard to the offence under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471 I.P.C. is not made out on taking
the allegations and the evidence in support
thereof on face value. The respective parties
agree that they are owners and in possession of
their respective plots. The nature of cheating or
forgery is not spelled out by the witnesses nor
there is evidence to that effect. The prosecution
of the applicant for the offence under the
abovenoted sections if continued is abuse of the
process of the court, accordingly unsustainable.

28. The allegations of the offence
under Section 448 I.P.C. is based on the
statements recorded by I.O. under Section
161 Cr.P. C. and report of Naib-Tehsildar,
would prima facie make out a case against
the applicants. The plots no. 280 and 282
purchased in public auction was finally
transferred to the Degree College in 2004,
until then no suit or complaint was filed
alleging trespass. It is only after mutation
in 2007, the suits came to be filed on the
complainants
side
seeking
injunction
against the applicants. A complaint was
filed on Thana Divas alleging trespass on
plots no. 239 and 240 by the Degree
College. The nature of the plot/premises
alleged to have been trespassed/encroached
upon is a ''house' or not is a subject matter
of evidence and cannot be gone into in
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

29. The criminal prosecution insofar it
relates to offence under Sections 420, 467,
478 and 471 I.P.C. is quashed. Accordingly
charge framed under those Sections are also
quashed. The trial shall proceed against the
applicants for offence under Section 448
I.P.C., in accordance with law.

30. The application is accordingly
allowed in part.

31. The party shall file computer
generated copy of this order downloaded from
the official website of High Court Allahabad.

32. The computer generated copy of
the order shall be self attested by the
counsel of the party concerned.

33. The concerned Court/Authority/Official
shall
verify
the
authenticity
of
such
computerized copy of the order from the official
website of High Court Allahabad and shall
make a declaration of such verification in
writing.
----------
(2020)12ILR A237
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 46964 of 2013

Munnanul Haq & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties
238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Rizwan Ahmad Qureshi, Sri Braham
Singh, Sri Syed Mehmood

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Ansari, Sri
Krishna Datt Tiwari

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 482 & Indian Penal Code, 1860Sections 308/34, 323/34, 324/34, 504,
506-application-cross-case-challenge
toframing of charges-assault was with
regard to dispute of landed propertyassault was made by lathi, danda and
tabbal-both injured sustained wound over
skull-opinion
of
medical
officer
also
supported that the injuries could be fatalseat and size of injuries was of kind that
one injured person was unconscioushence, at the time of framing of charge,
the evidences brought by prosecution on
record, is to be taken into considerationthe
court
in
exercise
of
inherent
jurisdiction is not expected to make
comment upon factual aspects because
the same remains within the domain of
trial.(Para 2 to 7)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Bechan Vs St. of U.P., (1991) A.L.J. 568

2. Palwinder Singh Vs Balwinder Singh & Ors.,
(2009) AIR SC 887

3. Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors, (2013) AIR SC 52

4. Sayra Bano Vs St. of Mah., (2007) Cri. L.J
1457 SC

5. St. of A.P. Vs Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT (2010)
6 SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr L. J
3844,

6. Hamida Vs Rashid (2008) 1 SCC 474

7. Monica Kumar Vs St. of U.P. (2008) 8 SCC
781
8. Popular Muthiah Vs St. Represented by
Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.)

1. This application under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. has been filed by Munnanul Haq,
Asif, Arif and Ataur Rahman, with a prayer
for quashing of impugned order dated
10.12.2013, passed in Sessions Trial No.
251 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No.
194 of 2012, under Sections 308/34,
323/34, 324/34, 504, 506 IPC, Police
Station Kanth, District Moradabad.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants
argued that vide impugned order, learned
trial Court of Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Moradabad,
in Sessions trial No. 251 of 2013, has
framed charge for offences punishable
under Sections 308/34, 323/34, 324/34,
504, 506 IPC, with a direction for trial of
applicants for above charge. Whereas, no
grievous hurt, likely to cause death, or of
nature to cause death in all probability was
there. Rather, injuries were held to be of
simple
in
X-ray
examination
and
supplementary
report
of
medical
examination of Javed Khan. Whereas, no
supplementary
report
with
regard
to
Sahamat is there. Medical Officer opined
that the injuries could be sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature. But
injuries were held to be of simple in nature.
Hence, no offence, punishable under
Section 308 IPC was made out. Even then,
charge for the same was got framed.
Whereas, this Court in a precedent,
reported at 1980 A.L.J. 816, Bechan vs
State of U.P., 1991 A.L.J. 568 and in an
Application under Section 482 No. 28115
of 2010, decided on 10.11.2010, has held
that injuries, if not of fatal in nature, will
not amount for offence punishable under
12 All. Munnanul Haq & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
239
Section 308 IPC. Hence, impugned order of
learned trial Court is under abuse of
process of law. Hence, this application with
above prayer.

3. Learned AGA as well as learned
counsel for the informant has vehemently
opposed, with this contention that it was a
cross case, wherein, FIR was instantly got
lodged as case crime number 194 of 2012,
under Sections 308/34, 323/34, 324/34,
504,
506
IPC,
P.S.
Kanth,
District
Moradabad, on 10.7.2012, at 9.:40 A.M.
The cross version by Mohd. Arif was also
got registered for offence punishable under
Sections 323 and 504 IPC, on the same date
of 10.7.2012 at 10:15 A.M. The injured
Javed Khan and Sahamat were instantly
taken for medical treatment by police
personnel and they were instantly taken
medically examined, wherein, Javed Khan
was having injury:- (1) Incised wound of
5.0cm X 1.0cm, deep bone over skull,
anteriorly, 7.5cm above medial end of left
eyebrow. At the time of examination patient
was unconscious with blood pressure of
110/60 mmHg, pulse rate 90bpm. (2)
Tenderness was present over left side of
chest wall, though no mark of injury was
there. (3) Tenderness was also present over
left side of abdomen and in lumbar region.
Injury No. (1) is caused by some sharp
edged object and injury Nos. (2) and (3) by
hard and blunt object. All injuries are fresh
in duration and kept under observation.
Patient was refereed to District Hospital for
admission & X-ray [CT skull and chest &
USG
Abdomen].
Sahamat
was
also
medically examined and he was having
injuries:- (1) Incised wound of 5.5cm X
1.0cm above deep over right side of skull,
laterally 9.0cm above roof of left pinna.
Patient was conscious. (2) Traumatic
swelling of size 3.5cm X 2.5cm over left
wrist dorsally. (3) An abrasion of size
1.0cm X 1.0cm over left palm. Injury No. 1
is caused by sharp edged object and injury
Nos. 2 and 3 were caused by hard and blunt
object. All injuries were fresh in duration.
Injury No. 3 is simple in nature and injury
Nos. 1 and 2 are kept under observation
and advised for X-ray and CT scan and
patient was referred for hospital for his
admission
and
further
management.
Though supplementary report of Javeda
Khan is with no abnormalcy, but patient
was admitted for a long time for his
treatment and seat and size of injury was
over skull. Hence, offence punishable
under Section 308 IPC was very well there.
Accordingly, charge was framed.

4. Having heard learned counsel for
the both sides and gone through the
material placed on record, it is apparent
that on the same day of occurrence, FIR, by
both sides, were got registered at police
station Kanth, Moradabad. Injured of
present case Javed Khan and Sahamat was
taken to hospital, where, they were medico
legally examined and were having injuries,
written as above. They were referred for
their specialized treatment. Seat and size of
injuries were on skull of both injured and
these injuries were of incised nature,
caused by sharp edged weapon. Accusation
was that assault was made by four accused
persons, in furtherance of their joint
mensrea, by lathi, danda and tabbal (a sharp
edged weapon like spade). This assault was
with regard to dispute of landed property in
between. Meaning thereby, assault was
made by hard and blunt object as well as by
sharp edged object, over both of injured
persons and they have sustained injuries of
sharp edged weapon's incised wound over
skull and Medical Officer, while preparing
supplementary report of Javed Khan, has
specifically mentioned that injury No. 1
could be fatal. Hence, at the stage of
240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
framing of charge, meticulous analysis of
evidence, in accordance with hair splitting
in nature, is not needed. Rather, at the time
of framing of charge, the evidences brought
by prosecution on record, is to be taken into
consideration and Hon'ble Apex Court in
Palwinder Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh
and others AIR 2009 SC 887 as well as in
Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors, AIR 2013
SC 52, has propounded that jurisdiction of
the learned Sessions Judge while exercising
power under Section 227 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is limited. Charges can
be framed also on the basis of strong
suspicion. Marshalling and appreciation of
evidence is not in the domain of the Court
at that point of time. The facts of present
case reveals that injuries of sharp edged
weapon over skull of both of injured is
there and seat and size of injuries was of
this kind that at the time of medical
examination Javed Khan was unconscious
and his blood pressure was, as above.
Medical Officer in his opinion was of the
view that this injury could be fatal. Hence,
at the time of framing of charge, above
aspect is to be taken into consideration and
on the basis of this, charges were framed,
as above.

5. With regard to precedent, argued as
above, it is apparent that in a criminal trial,
each case remains with its own facts and
the same is to be taken in view of fact of
above particular case. Moreso, at the time
of framing of charge, precedent or
something decided by Apex Court or by
this Court in final adjudication is not of
material effect. Rather, ground for framing
of charge is to be seen and it was very well
there. Apex Court in Sayra Bano Vs. State
of Maharashtra, 2007 Cri.L.J. 1457 SC,
has propounded that criminal cases are
decided on facts and evidences led in that
particular case, not on the basis of
precedent,
having
other
facts
and
circumstances. Hence, on the basis of those
facts and circumstances, the impugned
framing of charge was in accordance with
evidence on record till that point of time.

6. Moreso, this Court in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. is not expected to make comment
upon factual aspects because the same
remains within the domain of trial, as has
been propounded by Apex Court in State of
Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh,
JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767:
2010 Cr. LJ 3844 , Hamida v. Rashid,
(2008) 1 SCC 474, Monica Kumar v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781, as
well as in Popular Muthiah v. State,
Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006)
7 SCC 296. Accordingly, this application
merits its dismissal.

7. Hence, dismissed.

8. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
----------
(2020)12ILR A240
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.11.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.

Bail No. 5384 of 2020
alongwith
Bail No. 5756 of 2020

Abhishek Srivastava ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pranjal Krishna, Pooja Mishra, Shivam Pandey

Counsel
for
the
Opp.
Party: