BHUWNESH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the accused applicants, Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 530 of 2005 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 326 and 427 IPC, P.S. Sureer, District Mathura pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. 1st Mathura. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused applicants is that opposite party No. 2 filed a false F.I.R. against the applicants which was registered at Crime No. 9 of 2005 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. According to him there was no mention of any injury in the mouth or loss of tooth of the informant. After investigation the charge sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC but without there being any basis the further investigation was made and Section 326 and 427 were added in the charge sheet.

(3.) Learned counsel for the accused applicants has contended that F.I.R. was lodged by the applicant himself and if his tooth was lost at the time of alleged incident he must have mentioned this fact in the report itself. The absence of this fact in the report shows that the fact regarding injury to the tooth has been manipulated later on. He has further contended that learned Magistrate has summoned the accused without applying his judicial mind and that there is no evidence against the applicants and no case is made out against them. Learned counsel for the accused applicants has also contended that the allegations as made are absolutely absurd and inherently improbable and that the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. He also argued that in any case the offence cannot travel beyond the scope of Section 325 IPC.