At the initial stage, the Court should not delve into the merits of the case, and the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings when the trial had already commenced and witnesses had been examined.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant challenges the order passed by the High Court allowing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C in and by which the High Court has quashed the case in Crime No. 509/2012 under Sections 307 and 341 read with Section 34 I.P.C. filed against respondent nos. 2 to 5.

3. The occurrence in question was on 05.10.2012 at 07.30 a.m. On the complaint lodged by Respondent No. 4 Raj Kumar Sharma on the alleged murder of Pawan by the appellant and his party, a murder case was registered in Crime No. 505/2012 under Sections 302 IPC and 294 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and also under the Arms Act against the appellant- Umesh Singh and three others. The appellant-Umesh Singh is alleged to have fired at deceased Pawan.

4. The appellant - Umesh Singh has also filed a complaint against Respondent No. 4 and three others under Sections 307 and 341 read with Section 34 IPC based on which FIR was registered in Crime No. 509/2012. In the said Case in Crime No. 509/2012, police has filed three closure reports on 17.01.2013, 11.01.2014. By order dated 16.07.2014, the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not accept the closure report and directed taking cognizance of the matter. The charge-sheet has been filed in Crime No. 509/2012 against respondent nos. 2 to 5 and the trial commenced and one of witness was also partially examined. As against order of taking cognizance of the offence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Respondent nos. 2 to 5 preferred a Criminal Revision before the Sessions Court and the said Revision came to be dismissed by the order dated 11.09.2014. Thereafter, Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 approached the High Court by filing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and by the impugned order, the High Court has quashed the proceedings in Crime No. 509/2012. In the impugned order, the High Court held that the injuries sustained by the appellant - Umesh Singh appears to be self-inflicted. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

5. We have heard Mr. N.K. Mody, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and also perused the impugned judgment.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that based on the materials, the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Court have satisfied that there are prima facie materials to presume that the respondents-accused committed the offence and had taken cognizance of the matter. It was submitted that after the charges were framed and the trial had commenced the High Court was not right in quashing the proceedings.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 has submitted that the case in Crime No. 509/2012 is a counter blast to the murder case and rightly quashed by the High Court. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the various documents like FIR and FSL Report and inter alia, raised various submissions namely: (i) The timing of recording of FIR in Crime No. 509/2012 is totally in contradiction to the dying declaration recorded by deceased Pawan (in Crime No. 505/2012); (ii)Going by dying declaration by deceased Pawan, the incident as alleged by the appellant-Umesh Singh (Crime No. 509/2012) would not have happened and the dying declaration improbablize the occurrence as alleged by the appellant and (iii) FSL Report and also the opinion of the Doctor would clearly show that the gunshot allegedly sustained by the appellant-Umesh Singh had been self-inflicted and not sustained in the manner as alleged.

8. We are not inclined to go into the merits of the contention raised by the parties. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5 are to be raised at the time of the trial and ought to be considered on their own merits.

9. At the stage of taking cognizance and at the initial stage, the Court is not expected to go