# Om Prakash Maurya v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 523
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-10-12
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 7213 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/om-prakash-maurya-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47747
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 227 - Discharge
, Section 482 - Inherent power - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 324,
504, 506, 308, 304 - At the stage of
framing charge , only prima facie case is
to be seen, whether case is beyond
reasonable doubt is not to be seen - Court
has to see if there is sufficient ground for
presuming
that
the
accused
has
committed an offence. (Para - 10)

F.I.R. lodged by first informant/opposite party
no.2 - against three accused persons including
present applicant - injured died due to head
injuries - Section 302 I.P.C. added - applicant
named in F.I.R. - all accused persons assigned
role of assaulting injured by lathi, danda and
knife - discharge application moved by applicant
- rejected by Session judge.(Para -8)

HELD:- At this stage, only prima facie
availability of material warranting framing of
charge against the applicant is enough . No
roving enquiry is required to ascertain veracity
or otherwise of the prosecution's case. No
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order
under challenge. No abuse of court's process.
(Para -12,13 )

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

10 All. Om Prakash Maurya Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
523
official website of High Court Allahabad
and shall make a declaration of such
verification in writing.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 523
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 7213 of 2022

Om Prakash Maurya ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sukh Deo Singh, Sri Paritosh Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 227 - Discharge
, Section 482 - Inherent power - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 324,
504, 506, 308, 304 - At the stage of
framing charge , only prima facie case is
to be seen, whether case is beyond
reasonable doubt is not to be seen - Court
has to see if there is sufficient ground for
presuming
that
the
accused
has
committed an offence. (Para - 10)

F.I.R. lodged by first informant/opposite party
no.2 - against three accused persons including
present applicant - injured died due to head
injuries - Section 302 I.P.C. added - applicant
named in F.I.R. - all accused persons assigned
role of assaulting injured by lathi, danda and
knife - discharge application moved by applicant
- rejected by Session judge.(Para -8)

HELD:- At this stage, only prima facie
availability of material warranting framing of
charge against the applicant is enough . No
roving enquiry is required to ascertain veracity
or otherwise of the prosecution's case. No
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order
under challenge. No abuse of court's process.
(Para -12,13 )

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:-
1. St. of Maha. Vs Som Nath Thapa, AIR 1996
SC 1744

2. Rajbir Singh Vs St. of U.P., AIR 2006 SC
1963

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Kumar
Srivastava-I, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. In view of the order proposed to be
passed, notice to the opposite party no.2 is
dispensed with.

3. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
29.08.2022 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-7, Sultanpur, whereby the
application of the applicant under Section
227 Cr.P.C. bearing No.8Kha has been
rejected in Sessions Trial No.707/2021
"State vs. Om Prakash Maurya and others"
in F.I.R. No.424 of 2020, under Sections
323, 324, 504, 506, 308, 304 I.P.C., Police
Station Jamo, District Amethi.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the applicant that false first information
report came to be lodged against the
applicant inter alia stating therein that he
along with other accused persons assaulted
the injured person and thereafter they fled
away from the spot. His further submission
is that in fact, due to some injuries in his
leg, the applicant was operated and a steel
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
plate was filled in his leg, due to which,
hewas unable to move swiftly. Therefore,
this fact itself belies the entire prosecution
story that the applicant after allegedly
assaulting the deceased ran away from the
spot. The learned trial Court failed to
appreciate this material aspect of the matter
and wrongly held that there was enough
material available on record to frame
charge. Even otherwise, no material could
be collected during investigation which
warrants framing of charge against the
applicant.

5. In view of the aforesaid, it is
further submitted by learned counsel for the
applicant that in view of the aforesaid, the
impugned order being palpably illegal
deserves to be set aside and a direction
needs to be issued to learned court below to
reconsider the matter afresh.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has
vehemently
opposed
the
prayer
by
submitting that in fact the first information
report came to be lodged by the first
informant/opposite
party
no.2
bearing
no.0424 of 2020 dated 28.11.2020 at 20:31
Hrs. under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506,
308, 304 I.P.C. against three accused
persons including the present applicant. It
has been stated in the first information
report that on 28.11.2020 at about 7 :00
P.M. when the first informant along with
his uncle were returning to their home after
buying some household articles, they were
assaulted
by
accused
persons,
who
nourished grudge against the first informant
and his uncle due to property dispute. In
this incident, injured, Surya Lal was
assaulted by lathi, danda and knife, who
was taken to hospital for medical treatment.

7. Learned A.G.A. has also pointed
out that afterwards, injured, Surya Lal
succumbed to his injures which led to
offence of Section 302 I.P.C. in this matter.
Therefore, he submits that at this stage,
according
to
settled
legal
position
availability
of
prima
facie
material
warranting framing of charge against the
applicant
is
enough.
No
roving
or
meticulous enquiry is either stipulated or
warranted at this stage. Therefore, learned
trial Court, after appreciating the law
correctly, had passed the impugned order
wherein no interference by this Court is
warranted.

8. Having heard learned counsel for
the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State
and upon perusal of the record, it transpires
that the first information report came to be
lodged by the first informant/opposite party
no.2 bearing no.0424 of 2020 dated
28.11.2020 at 20:31 Hrs. under Sections
323, 324, 504, 506, 308, 304 I.P.C. against
the three accused persons including the
present applicant. The injured, Surya Lal
died due to head injuries and therefore,
Section 302 I.P.C. came to be added in this
matter. The applicant is named in the first
information report and all the accused
persons have been assigned the role of
assaulting the injured by lathi, danda and
knife.

9. At the stage of framing charge,
only prima facie case is to be seen, whether
case is beyond reasonable doubt is not to be
seen at this stage. If the court comes to the
conclusion that the commission of offence
is a probable consequence, a case for
framing charge exists. At the stage of
framing
charge,
probative
value
of
materials on record cannot be gone into. At
this stage, it is not necessary for the
prosecution
to
establish
beyond
all
reasonable doubts that the accusation which
they are bringing against the accused
10 All. Naresh Kumar Valmiki Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
525
person is bound to be brought home against
him. At the stage of framing charge, the
Court has to see if there is sufficient ground
for presuming that the accused has
committed an offence. If the answer is in
affirmative, the order of discharge cannot
be passed and the accused has to face trial.

10.

To
substantiate
aforesaid
proposition, the judgment rendered by
Hon'ble the Apex Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, AIR
1996 SC 1744 and Rajbir Singh vs. State
of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 1963 may be
usefully referred to.

11. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid
settled legal position, at this stage, only
prima
facie
availability
of
material
warranting framing of charge against the
applicant is enough and no roving enquiry
is
required
to
ascertain
veracity
or
otherwise of the prosecution's case.

12. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid
discussion, this Court does not find
illegality or infirmity in the impugned order
under challenge. There is no abuse of
court's process either.

13. In view of the aforesaid, the
instant application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. lacks merit and deserves to be
dismissed.

14.

Accordingly,
the
instant
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.is
dismissed.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 525
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2022

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C. J.
THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 14443 of 2022
With other Connected Cases

Naresh Kumar Valmiki ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Arvind Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Syed Ali Murtaza, A.G.A. For State, Sri
Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, Sri Shobhit
Yadav, Sri Ankit Srivastava, Sri Kartikey
Pandey

(A) Criminal Law - Reference made - The
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 482 - Inherent power - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 21 - "Public
servant" - Section 21(3) - Judge is also a
"public servant" , The Scheduled Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 2 (bg) -
"Public servant" , Section 4(2)(b) - duties
of "public servant" - registration of a
complaint or a First Information Report,
Section 14 - Special Court and Exclusive
Special Court , second proviso to Section
14 - Special Court so established or
specified shall have powers to directly
take cognizance of offence under this Act -
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules,
1995 - Rule 7, 8 (via) and (vii),12. (Para -
12,13,14,20,21,)

Applications filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
- treated as a complaint - summoned -
challenging validity and legality of orders - Act
(The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ) is a Special
Act - overrides any other - Special Court
designated under the Act - cannot take
cognizance of an offence on itself - by treating
an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as
a complaint - question referred - Whether
Special Judge can treat the application under