JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the defence plea ofalibi was not considered by the police despite the same having been brought to its notice at the investigative stage itself. The submission of charge-sheet even after taking all these documents supporting /plea of alibi prima facie shows that the applicant's case was not probed or investigated, Apart from this it is also contended that summoning order has been passed without any application of mind. Summoning order in police challan case is issued on the basis of the allegations made in the charge-sheet. I have gone through the copy of the charge-sheet, which has been filed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit, which clearly indicates that a case is made out on the basis of the evidence collected by the investigating agency under Section 323, 324 and 506 I.P.C. Even the perusal of the first information report clearly shows that an offence was committed against the injured persons. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that these applicants did not particite in the offence cannot be gone into at this stage by this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Separation of grain from the chaff cannot be made on the basis of affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, meaning thereby that it can be done only after the conclusion of the recording of evidence. In the present case, undoubtedly, State has not preferred to file a counter affidavit. The question raised before me are subject to evidence and cannot be decided by this Court exercising its power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. at this stage. The questions of fact can always be settled after evidence is taken into consideration.

(3.) This petition is accordingly dismissed.