Rajeev Agrawal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet No.317 of 2005 dated 6.9.2005 submitted against the applicant u/s 506 I.P.C. in pursuance of F.I.R. dated 8.8.2005 registered as Case Crime No.469 of 2005, Police Station-New Agra, District-Agra, pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

List has been revised. Learned counsel for applicant is present along with learned A.G.A. But despite repeated calls none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. This application is of year 2005. In the wake of heavy pendency of cases in this Court where dockets are already bursting on their seams there is no justifiable reason to further procrastinate the matter. This Court, therefore, deems it fit to proceed in the matter on the basis of the record and taking assistance of the learned A.G.A. representing the State.

Heard learned counsel for applicant.

The allegations that have been made in the F.I.R. are to the effect that when the accused parked his car at a place regarding which the first informant had objection, the accused-applicant was asked not to park his car at that place and it was just upon this objection that the applicant whipped out his firearm and fired at the first informant. The first informant tried to save himself and rushed inside the house on which another fire was resorted to. Thereafter certain other persons assembled on the spot on which the accused made his escape good. But the material collected during the course of investigation disclosed an altogether different type of story. Counsel in this regard has drawn attention of the court to the statements of witnesses Angad Singh, who is a compounder of the first informant as well as that of Nitin Kumar and Rakesh Kumar. The perusal of which discloses that the accused at the relevant point of time was there along with his family which included his wife and children and he had come there to have his food in the restaurant and when some altercation between the doctor (first informant) and the accused took place regarding the parking place, somebody from inside the hospital brought an iron rod and proceeded towards the accused. It was on this that the accused fired in the air and made his escape good. It also transpires from the statements that were recorded during investigation that the accused had not aimed his firing upon any particular individual and it was a kind of firing resorted just in order to scare away the first informant. The evidence collected by the Investigating Officer also does not show any repetition of fire as was initially alleged in the F.I.R. In fact the nature of evidence as has been collected during the course of investigation also shows that when the first informant and his associates became aggressive against the accused-applicant, it appeared to him and he developed an apprehension that something untoward might take place with him. The statement of witness Nitin Kumar specifically is to the effect that the accused was given the impression that he had been surrounded along with his family by the hostile crowed and anything could have happened with his family and it was this reason which prompted him to resort to the firing in the air. Submission is that the central theme of all these statements recorded by the Investigating officer is such which does not show anything on the basis of which it may be inferred that the accused could have nurtured any intention to cause the death of anybody and therefore it had to be inferred that the alleged act of firing was never prompted by any intention to cause any injury to anybody, much less than to cause death of anybody. In fact if one leans to prefer adopting the probability in favour of the applicant, one can even go to the extent of inferring that probably whatever act was done by him was under the apprehension of receiving injury to his own person or to his family members and was a kind of defence mechanism emanating out of the instinct of self preservation. Submission is that there was absolutely no reason for the accused to have gone on the place of occurrence along with his family and target the first informant. Whatever happened was more in the nature of an accident and was certainly not the result of any design or planning and the alleged conduct of the applicant is wholly denuded of any mens rea on his part. In fact, the evidence that has been collected by the Investigating Officer also lacks the necessary ingredients on the basis of which Section 506 I.P.C. could have been made out. Submission is that in view of the material that has been collected during investigation the alleged offences are not made out and the continuation of criminal proceedings shall result in abuse of court's process and the same therefore are liable to be quashed. Counsel in this regard has placed reliance upon the Apex Court's decision given in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426.

Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Before proceeding to adjudge the legality and validity of the impugned charge sheet or the consequential proceedings, it would be apt to quote the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 which read as under :

"The following categories can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.

The perusal of the record and the statements that have been annexed along with the application show that the applicant had gone to attend a restaurant and on the day of incident he was there along with his wife and children, and therefore, it is not difficult to see that his visit to that particular place that day could never have been to commit any kind of criminal act or offence and the same was motivated purely by the reasons of recreation or entertainment. Whatever happened on spot was an unforeseen outcome of some unanticipated evolution of circumstances. It also appears that when the associates of the first informant made a kind of violent protest against the place of parking that was chosen by the applicant, it evoked a reaction and finding himself and his family surrounded by the hostile associates of the doctor, he resorted to the alleged kind of firing in the air. It is difficult for this court to give finding whether this allegation is true or not, but if for the sake of argument it is presumed to be true, then too it does not at all appear to be an act of firing with intention to cause any injury or damage, much less than to cause death of anybody. In such circumstances even in the estimate of the Investigating Officer no offence u/s 307 I.P.C. was made out and the charge sheet was also therefore not submitted u/s 307 I.P.C. The same having been submitted u/s 506 I.P.C. only. But the totality of circumstances as are apparent on the face of record are such that even that offence does not appear to be made out at all and in the considered opinion of this Court the impugned charge sheet submitted against the applicant deserves quashing.

In the considered view of this Court this matter falls in and partakes the hue of category no.(3) of aforementioned case law as the material collected in investigation does not appear to have constituted any offence against the applicant, and therefore, the impugned charge sheet and the consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed.

In this view of the matter, this application is allowed and the impugned proceedings against the accused-applicants stand quashed.

A copy of this order be certified to the lower court concerned forthwith.