GAURAV SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed under Sec. 482 CrPC for quashing order dtd. 28/7/2022 passed by Addl. district & Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Hathras in S.T. No.216 of 2019 State versus Yogesh Baghel and others and the further proceedings thereof, arising out of Case Crime No.126 of 2019 under Sec. 307, 147, 148, 149, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Hathras Kowali, district Hathras.

(2.) Heard Mr. Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State as also Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.2 who has submitted that he does not want to file any counter affidavit. Both the parties' counsel state that the matter may be finally decided.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently working as Assistant Clerk in Seth Harijan Das Girls Inter College, Hathras (to be hereafter referred to as 'college'). The injured Madan Mohan Gautam was also working as Clerk at that time in the college. It is submitted that regarding forgery committed by the injured in his two appointment letters, a complaint was filed by the applicant to the District Magistrate, Hathras, on which a reply was called from the Manager. Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools, Hathras directed the Manager on 31/8/2020 to submit a report regarding illegal appointment of injured Madam Mohan Gautam. In the meantime, Madam Mohan Gautam, injured was also involved in appointment of one Rajeshwari on class-IV post on forged and fabricated papers and he had also taken bribe to procure the said appointment in the college. When the said illegality was surfaced, Rajeshwari was removed from service and Madan Mohan Gautam was attached in the government labrary by the District Inspector of Schools. Since Rajeshwari has given huge amount of money for appointment to the injured Madan Mohan Gautam, hence her son Laltu alias Lalit was having enmity against Madan Mohan Gautam. On the date of the incident, i.e. on 12/4/2019, the injured Madan Mohan Gautam was transferred back to the college and joined. On that day, he was attacked by Laltu alias Lalit along with the two co-accused persons. One gun shot injury was shown in the medical examination report. It is submitted that in the first information report, presence of the applicant has not been shown on the spot, although suspicion was raised upon the applicant along with other co-accused persons. The prosecution witness Yashomani Gautam (respondent No.2) who is son of the injured in his statement has alleged that three accused persons fired on his father with an intent to kill, however, presence of the present applicant was not shown at the spot. Again, suspicion was raised by him. Another son of the injured Rajatmani alias Rahul in his statement has clearly mentioned the name of three assailants, i.e. Vishal, Laltu and Kanha and has alleged that all the three assailants were on a Platina motorcycle and fired with an intent to kill at his father Madan Mohan Gautam. The injured Madan Mohan Gautam has also taken the name of aforesaid three accused persons, i.e. Vishal, Laltu and Kanha. He also did not show presence of the applicant at the place of occurrence. In fact, he has not even taken the name of the applicant in any manner. He even stated that he is not aware as to who is behind this conspiracy and this fact can be culled out by interrogation of Vishal, Laltu and Kanha. The co-accused Laltu in his confessional statement has confessed the guilt and has stated that the conspiracy was hatched by him with other two co-accused persons and one motorcycle Platina black colour was also made available by Yogesh Baghel and some cash was also given by him. He has also not taken the name of the applicant in the incident. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the investigating officer against Yogesh Kumar, Laltu, Vishal Sharma and Kanha. The investigating officer did not find complicity of the applicant. One Bajaj Platina Black motorcycle No.UP86 E 3056 was recovered. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 4.2.2020, on a complaint made by the applicant, the Commissioner, Aligarh Region has directed District Magistrate, Hathras to conduct an enquiry in the matter of forgery committed by Madan Mohan Gautam regarding his two appointment letters. It is submitted that after the aforesaid letter dtd. 4/2/2020 was written, P.W.2 Madan Mohan Gautam, injured was examined before the trial court. While being examined before the trial Court, he took a u-turn and for the first time in the prosecution case, second motorcycle was introduced by the injured witness. It is submitted that it is in the statement before the court, P.W.2 injured witness while introducing second motorcycle has stated in his cross-examination that the applicant was riding on the Splender motorcycle which belongs to him. He further stated that five persons were present at the place of occurrence. The Splender motorcycle was driven by Lalit on which Gaurav Sharma, Lalit and Yogesh Baghel were riding and Nitin and Vishal were riding on the Platina motorcycle. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the trial court has failed to consider the fact that the investigating officer after meticulous investigation and on the basis of confessional statement made by Lalit has filed the charge sheet and has recovered the Platina motorcycle. No other motorcycle was recovered by the investigating officer nor was found involved in the crime. Both the sons of injured as well as the injured himself have not assigned the role of firing to the applicant or shown his presence at the spot in their statements under sec. 161 CrPC. The statement given by the injured Madan Mohan Gautam before the court is nothing but a clear lie and has been used as a tool to exert pressure on the applicant who happens to be the complainant against him and on his complaint, an enquiry has already been ordered by the Commissioner, Aligarh regarding the forgery committed by him in his appointment letter.