Court No. - 91

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28885 of 2021

Applicant :- Varun Talreja

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the

State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for

quashing the charge-sheet dated 13.1.2021 along with

cognizance/summoning order dated 12.3.2021 as well as entire

proceedings of Case No. 11713 of 2021 (State Vs. Dinesh and

another) arising out of Case Crime No. 06 of 2021, under

Sections 216 IPC, P.S. Hari Parvat, District Agra pending

before the learned C.J.M. Agra.

The prosecution case is that a police party went to arrest one

Shubham Solanki the accused of Crime No. 504 of 2020 under

section 386, 354-B, 427, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. He was present

on his residence 7/1 H.I.G. Flat Sanjay Place, P.S. Hari Parvat,

Agra. Dinesh and Varun Talreja seeing the police party

facilitated the escape of Shubham Solanki from the flat. They

prevented the police personnel from entering into the house and

stopped them at the door due to which Shubham Solanki

succeeded in fleeing. The FIR was lodged under section 216

IPC against Dinesh and Varun Talreja. After investigation

charge-sheet has been submitted.

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the

prosecution story is wholly false, fabricated and cooked up.

The applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity with

O.P. No. 2. No such incident has taken place. It is also

contended that on 15.1.2021 O.P. No. 2 and his associates again

caught the applicant and brutally beaten him due to which the

applicant sustained serious injuries and X-ray was advised,

thereafter, he was challaned under section 151/107/116 Cr.P.C.

The applicant is a poor person doing driving work in the area of

concerned police station and the opposite party no. 2 use to

demand money from the applicant. On refusal he feels personal

enmity and falsely implicated the applicant. It is further

contended that applicant is a resident of another place and he

was not present at the time at the place of occurrence nor he has

any concern with Shubham Solanki. No offence is made out

against the applicant. The I.O. has wrongly investigated the

matter and filed the charge-sheet against the applicant without

any credible evidence. It is also contended that applicant was

not aware about the impugned charge-sheet because neither any

summon or warrant has been received by the applicant. The

present criminal proceeding and charge-sheet is an abuse of the

process of law. Learned counsel also contended that Provision

of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. is attracted as the offence is punishable

for 3 years.

Learned A.G.A. opposed it and submitted that there are clear

allegations against the applicant in the FIR. On the basis of

credible evidence charge-sheet has been submitted and learned

Magistrate has taken cognizance on it. There is no illegality in

the impugned summoning order.

The allegations of the FIR discloses a cognizable offence. The

I.O. has collected evidence during the course of investigation

and on its basis finding sufficient evidence has submitted the

charge-sheet. The learned Magistrate being satisfied with it has

taken cognizance on it. The offence under section 216 Cr.P.C.

is cognizable offence as given in the schedule of Cr.P.C. so

there is no question of application of Provision of Section 2(d)

Cr.P.C. It is settled principle of law that at this stage only prima

facie case is to be seen as propounded in the case of Zandu

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and

another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. There is no material

on record to show that the charge-sheet or cognizance order is

an abuse of the process of court or law. There is no illegality in

the impugned summoning or