The court may quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if allegations are based on malice, lack credible evidence, and constitute an abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Prakash Singh,J.

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-Respondent.

2. The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned orders dated 19.12.2007 and 22.7.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Lucknow in Case No. 17162/2007, State Vs Ramesh Kumar Srivastava and Others, as well as the impugned Chargesheet No. 202/207 dated 18.12.2007 under Section 325 and 506 I.P.C., Case Crime no. 77/2007, Police Station-Kotwali Hazratganj, district-Lucknow.

3. From perusal of the ordersheet, it reveals that the notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 on 08-10- 2013 and an interim protection of permanent nature was also granted in favour of the applicants in the same order. The registry reported on 06-12-2013 while mentioning that as per the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow dated 18-11-2013, the opposite party no. 2 namely, Smt. Sheela Gupta died on 23-06- 2009 while suffering with cancer. The report reveals that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow has recorded the statement of the husband of the opposite party no. 2 namely, Yogesh Chandra Gupta, the statement of the Head Constable, Sunil Chandra, has also been recorded regarding the death of opposite party no. 2.

4. This matter is arising out of a police case and the state government has filed it’s Counter Affidavit on 07-01-2014.

5. The factual matrix of the case are that the first information report was lodged on 08-02-2007 at 20.10 Hrs. regarding the incident allegedly committed on 15- 01-2007. It is narrated that Dr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, the applicant no. 2, conducted the operation in a careless and negligent manner at Prathmik Swasthya Kendra, Malihabad, district- Lucknow, whereupon the malignancy was developed in the body of the opposite party no. 2. Further alleged that when the informant/opposite party no. 2 was sitting on ‘Dharna’ for compensation and was returning from the lavatory, both the applicants hit her with a motorcycle, with an intention to kill her and they also threatened her to quit ‘Dharna’ or to face dire consequences, as a result whereof, she fell down on her left elbow, whereafter the people lifted her and she went under treatment in K.G.M.U., Lucknow, wherein her left elbow was found fractured and that was plastered for six weeks.

6. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the first information report was lodged by delay of about two months, from the date of the alleged incident and no plausible explanation is given thereof and further in a very hurriedly manner, within 10 days of lodging of the first information report, the Investigating Officer, without collecting sufficient evidence, filed the chargesheet. He submits that the husband of the opposite party no. 2, namely Y.C. Gupta, Ram Gopal Bhurji and two other witnesses, whose statements were recorded, were never seen the incident and they all are allegedly hear the occurrence of incident.

7. He submits that the applicants had no knowledge of lodging of the first information report and filing of the chargesheet and as soon as it came into their knowledge, they submitted an application for further investigation while appending the enquiry report conducted by Dr. M.K.Gupta, the then Dy. C.M.O., the reply dated 28-07-2006 given by the applicant no. 1 to the