# Vaibhav Nigam v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 1017
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-14
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 1381 of 2020
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar -Ix
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vaibhav-nigam-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45903
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 239 Cr.P.C.- Application for
discharge
rejected-
Difference
in
registration number of the offending vehicle
in the claim petition and in the FIR and
evidence collected by the I.O - The claim
petition which is now not in existence and
has been dismissed in non appearance of
the claimant, is not such an exceptional
defence
material
demonstrating
the
prosecution version absurd or preposterous.
At the top of first page of the claim petition
parties names are mentioned with the
registration number of offensive vehicle as
UP74PE6327 (Car) but in para 23 of the
same petition the registration number of the
offensive vehicle is clearly mentioned as
UP78DE6327. Therefore, the aforesaid claim
petition was not a such type of exceptional
defence evidence which was required to be
looked into at the time of framing charges.

It is settled law that at the time of framing of
charges there must be very rare and exceptional
circumstances where the defence material could
convince the Court that the entire case is absurd
and preposterous but in the present case, where
the claim petition has been dismissed for want
of prosecution and the same registration
number of the vehicle is mentioned in the
paragraph of the claim petition which is also in
the FIR, exceptional circumstances are made
out for the interference of the Court.

Criminal Application rejected. (Para 11) (E-3)

Case law relied upon/ Discussed: -

## Text

9 All. Vaibhav Nigam Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1017
possible endeavour to conclude the trial of
the aforesaid case within a period of four months
from today without granting unnecessary
adjournments to either of the parties.
----------
(2020)09ILR A1017
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR -IX, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1381 of 2020

Vaibhav Nigam ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Awadh Bihari Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 239 Cr.P.C.- Application for
discharge
rejected-
Difference
in
registration number of the offending vehicle
in the claim petition and in the FIR and
evidence collected by the I.O - The claim
petition which is now not in existence and
has been dismissed in non appearance of
the claimant, is not such an exceptional
defence
material
demonstrating
the
prosecution version absurd or preposterous.
At the top of first page of the claim petition
parties names are mentioned with the
registration number of offensive vehicle as
UP74PE6327 (Car) but in para 23 of the
same petition the registration number of the
offensive vehicle is clearly mentioned as
UP78DE6327. Therefore, the aforesaid claim
petition was not a such type of exceptional
defence evidence which was required to be
looked into at the time of framing charges.

It is settled law that at the time of framing of
charges there must be very rare and exceptional
circumstances where the defence material could
convince the Court that the entire case is absurd
and preposterous but in the present case, where
the claim petition has been dismissed for want
of prosecution and the same registration
number of the vehicle is mentioned in the
paragraph of the claim petition which is also in
the FIR, exceptional circumstances are made
out for the interference of the Court.

Criminal Application rejected. (Para 11) (E-3)

Case law relied upon/ Discussed: -

1. St. of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi (2005)
1 SCC 568

2. Rukmini Narvekar Vs Vijay Sataredkar & ors.
A.I.R. 2009 SC 1013

3. St. of M.P. Vs S.B. Johari & ors. A.I.R. 2000
SC 665

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar -IX, J.)

1. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant
with prayer to quash the order dated
07.06.2019 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Kanpur
Dehat on the discharge application of the
applicant under Section 239 Cr.P.C. in
Case No. 721 of 2014 (State Vs. Vaibhav
Nigam) arising out of Case Crime No. 41
of 2014, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A, 427 I.P.C. and Section

2. Briefly stated facts relevant for
disposal of this application are that F.I.R.
Case Crime No. 41 of 2014, under Sections
279, 337, 338, 304-A, 427 I.P.C. and
Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act has been
lodged on written complaint of Rakesh
Kumar against driver of the vehicle Maruti
Registration
No.UP78DE6327
alleging
therein that on 20.02.2014 at about 4:30
PM the driver of the aforesaid vehicle by
his rash and negligent driving collided with
1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Motor
Cycle
Registration
No.UP78DC7624 on which informant's
brother Anil Kumar was riding with his
father. In this accident both of them
sustained serious injury and due to injury
sustained in this accident father of the
informant died. After investigation I.O. has
submitted
charge
sheet
against
the
applicant Vaibhav Nigam under Sections
279, 337, 338, 304-A, 427 I.P.C. and
Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act.

3. The applicant moved application for
discharging him under Section 239 Cr.P.C.
before the Magistrate concerned, learned
Court below was of the view that there was
sufficient ground to proceed and frame the
charges against the applicant under Sections
279, 337, 338, 304-A, 427 I.P.C. and Section
184 of Motor Vehicle Act and rejected the
application of the applicant. Against the
aforesaid order this application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant
before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that applicant has been falsely
implicated in this case. The vehicle which he
was driving was not involved in this accident.
Learned counsel for the applicant further
contended that Anil Kumar son of the deceased
had filed a claim petition No. 783 of 2014
regarding this accident and the same was
dismissed on 23.05.2017 in non appearance of
the claimant. In that claim petition at the top of
the first page where parties names were
mentioned, the registration number of the
offensive
vehicle
was
mentioned
as
UP74PE6327 (Car) this fact was brought in
notice of the Court below but it was not
considered and application of the applicant was
rejected illegally by the impugned order.

5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently
opposed the prayer for quashing the
impugned order and submitted that there
was sufficient materials to proceed against
the applicant and there is no illegality in the
impugned order.

6. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

7. On the basis of F.I.R. registered in
this case, statement of the witnesses
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and
other evidence collected by the I.O., charge
sheet against the applicant/accused has
been submitted under Sections 279, 337,
338, 304-A, 427 I.P.C. and Section 184 of
Motor Vehicle Act. On the basis of
evidence collected by the I.O. learned
Magistrate has concluded that there is
sufficient ground to proceed against the
applicant in this case, therefore, application
to discharge the applicant was rejected.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
contended that in claim petition No. 783 of
2014 filed by the son of the deceased
regarding death of the deceased in this
accident which was dismissed due to non
appearance of the claimant, at the top of the
petition
registration
number
of
the
offensive
vehicle
was
mentioned
as
UP74PE6327 (Car) whereas in F.I.R. and
evidence collected by the I.O. The
registration number of the offensive vehicle
is mentioned as UP78DE6327, copy of the
aforesaid claim petition is being annexed as
Annexure
No.3
with
affidavit
accompanying this application.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant
further
contended
that
vehicle
No.
UP78DE6327 was not involved in this
accident and charge could not be framed
against the applicant. Learned counsel for
the applicant submitted that this matter was
9 All. Bhoop Kishore Saini & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1019
brought before the Court but it was not
considered. In State of Orissa Vs. Debendra
Nath Padhi 2005 (1) SCC 568 it was observed
by Hon'ble the Apex Court that at the time of
framing of charges only the material produced
by the prosecution side can be looked into by
the Court but the material produced by the
defence cannot be looked into.

10. In case of Rukmini Narvekar Vs.
Vijay Sataredkar & others A.I.R. 2009 SC
1013 it has been observed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court that ordinarily defence material
cannot be looked into by the Court while
framing of the charges in view of D.N.
Padhi's case (supra), there may be some
very rare and exceptional cases where some
defence material when shown to the trial
Court would convincingly demonstrate that
the prosecution version is totally absurd or
preposterous, and in such very rare cases
the defence material can be looked into by
the Court at the time of framing of the
charges or taking cognizance.

11. In instant case the aforesaid claim
petition which is now not in existence and
has been dismissed on 23.05.2017 in non
appearance of the claimant, is not such an
exceptional defence material demonstrating
the
prosecution
version
absurd
or
preposterous. I have perused the copy of
the said claim petition No.783 of 2014
annexed as Annexure no.3 to the affidavit.
At the top of first page of the claim petition
parties names are mentioned with the
registration number of offensive vehicle as
UP74PE6327 (Car) but in para 23 of the
same petition the registration number of the
offensive vehicle is clearly mentioned as
UP78DE6327. Therefore, the aforesaid
claim petition was not a such type of
exceptional defence evidence which was
required to be looked into at the time of
framing charges.

12. In State of M.P. Vs. S.B. Johari
and others A.I.R. 2000 SC 665 it has been
observed by Hon'ble the Apex Court that it
is settled law that at the stage of framing
charge, the Court has to prima facie
consider whether there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused. The
Court is not required to appreciate the
evidence and arrive at the conclusion that
the materials produced are sufficient or not
for convicting the accused. If the Court is
satisfied that a prima facie case is made out
for proceeding further then a charge has to
be framed.

13. In case at hand, from perusal of
the F.I.R., statement of injured Anil Kumar
and other evidence collected by the I.O.
there was sufficient material to proceed
against the applicant/accused. In view of
the above discussion there is no illegality in
the impugned order, the application is
liable to be dismissed.

14. Consequently prayer for quashing
the impugned order is refused.

15. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2020)09ILR A1019
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.06.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALI ZAMIN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 10567 of 2020

Bhoop Kishor Saini & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra