The court emphasized the duty of the court to evaluate the material allegations and to consider the specific provision of law under the SC/ST Act at the time of framing charges.

JUDGMENT :

1. The application in hand is moved under section 482 of Criminal procedure code, 1973 by learned counsel Sri Dev Mani Mishra on behalf of applicant accused involved in case crime no. 80/2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3(1)(D) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act (which shall hereinafter be addressed as SC/ST Act), Police Station -Aspur Deosara, District Pratapgarh. The applicant seeks following reliefs, praying to:-

"That under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is very respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned Charge sheet dated 18.07.2019, U/S-323,504,506, I.P.C, and 3(1)(D) S.c & S.t Act. Police Station-Aspur Deosara, District-Pratapgarh, filed in F.I.R No. 0080/2019, U/S-323,504,506, I.P.C, and 3(1)(D) S.c & S.t Act. Police Station- Aspur Deosara, District- Pratapgarh, contained and annexed as annexure no. 2 to this petition. Further it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 319/2019 state of U.P. versus Surendra Tiwari and Another, pending before special judge S.c & S.t Act. Pratapgarh, In the interest of justice."

2. The grounds upon which the relief to quash the charge-sheet is sought, as pleaded in the application are-

(i) applicants have no criminal history.

(ii) the allegations labelled against the applicants in the present case are nothing but an attempt to save himself from own wrong by the informant.

3. Learned A.G.A concentrating over the ground that just because the applicant has no criminal history, the FIR, charge sheet as well as criminal proceeding initiated against him do not become shaky and suspicious in itself. He further argued that each and every case is to be looked into with respect to the particular allegations made therein and so far as the fact of accused having no criminal history is concerned, it may be a relevant fact to be stated as evidence in defence, however it is immaterial for considering whether or not the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. The argument of the learned A.G.A is supported with the interpretation of word 'fact' as interpreted under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, the 'interpretation clause', which is quoted hereunder provide as following:-

“Fact”. —“Fact” means and includes—

(1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses;

(2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. Illustrations

(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact.

(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.

(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.

(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.

(e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact."

4. In view of the above, the reputation of the applicant accused, as claimed by him of having no criminal antecedent is of no avail at this stage where evidence is not being appreciated for the purpose of evaluating the allegations made against him in the FIR and the charge-sheet.

5. The other ground on the basis of which the relief of quashing the charge-sheet and the entire proceeding is sought raises an issue "whether the allegations labelled against the applicants in present case, are nothing but an attempt by the informant to save himself from his own wrong" is to be examined carefully so as to prevent abuse of process, if any, is being done.

6. In R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 516, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"9(2). For the said purpose, the court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence".

7. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the state oppo