M. S. A. Siddiqui,j.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. , the petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings emanating from the FIR No. 248/96 under Sections 147/149/323/354/506 Indian Penal Code registered at the Police Station Tughlak Road.

( 2 ) PETITIONER is the president of the Bahujan Samaj Party (for short the BSP ). In 1996, the Govt. had provided security cover to the petitioner and he was placed in "z category. Petitioner s official residence had a security picket at its entrance. On 25. 10. 96, Ms. Mayawati (since discharged) and other BSP leaders had assembled at the petitioner s residence to deliberate on the issue of government formation in Uttar Pradesh. On that day, some 50/60 journalists, hoping to get a quota or a photograph of these leaders, had positioned themselves in front of the petitioner s residence. Petitioner s security personnel asked the mediapersons to leave the area and aheated verbal exchanged ensued. The petitioner then emerged from the house. As per prosecution case, the petitioner, having abused the mediapersons, exhorted his security personnel to thrash them. Thereafter, the security personnel started hitting the journalists and the petitioner himself assaulted the complainant Israr Ahmed. The complainant Israr Ahmed lodged the FIR No. 248/96 at the P. S. Tughlak Road. Investigation pursuant thereto culminated in submission of a charge sheet under Sections 147/149/323/506/354 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and Ms. Mayawati. The petitioner and Ms. Mayawati filed an application before the learned Magistrate seeking discharge from the proceedings. By the order dated 31. 3. 1999 the learned Magistrate discharged the co-accused Ms. Mayawati but he rejected the petitioner s prayer on the ground that materials collected by the prosecuting agency make out a prima facie case under Sections 147/149/323/506/354 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 9. 9. 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the said order by filing the Special Leave Petition (Cr.) Nos. 3654-3655/1999 before the Supreme Court. On 10. 12. 1999, the said Special Leave Petition was disposed of by the following order:

"the learned counsel for the petitioner slates that even though the petitioner had made an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code after withdrawing Crl. R. No. 137/99 for enabling to make an application for quashing the criminal proceedings, a wrong prayer was made for recalling the order passed in that revision application. Learned counsel further states that the petitioner will now file a proper application for quashing the proceedings before the High Court, and therefore, he does not want to press this petition. The special leave petition is dismissed as not pressed. "

( 3 ) MR. D. D. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order has not only resulted in manifest injustice meted out to the petitioner but the same is patently illegal, improper and justified inasmuch as the materials collected by the prosecuting agency do not make out any case against the petitioner. It is significant to mention that the power of quashing an FIR or criminal prosecution has to be sparingly exercised by the Court with due regard to the guide-lines laid down in this behalf. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604, certain categories of cases have been laid down by way of illustrations wherein the extraordinary power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. can be exercised by the High Court either to to vent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

( 4 ) THE charge-sheet constitutes prima facie evidence constituting the offence for proceeding further in the matter. Necessarily, therefore, the Court his to look into the law and the allegations made i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document