NARENDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.

(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants Narendra Sharma and Praveen Sharma against State of U.P. and Raju with prayer to quash entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 575 of 2019, State of U.P. Vs. Praveen Sharma and another, under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Singhawali Aheer, district Baghpat.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants argued that Case Crime No. 240 of 2018 was filed at P.S. Singhawali Aheer, district Baghpat, for offence punishable u/s 307 I.P.C. for an occurrence of 4.00 A.M. on 11.7.2018 on the same date at 5.10 A.M. upon report of Raju against Praveen Sharma and Narendra Sharma with this contention that informant's father Ramesh Chandra @ Pappu, son of Chandrabhan was at his home in the ground floor portion for being fresh as usual, when after it, he got door opened, on a white colour Apache motorcycle having rider Praveen Sharma and his brother-in-law Narendra Sharma came there. Praveen Sharma was resident of same village. Praveen Sharma gave a fire shot by his pistol. Informant was armed with danda, he made a blow of it resulting damage over mirror of motorcycle. Neighbourers rushed after hearing firearm shot and this occurrence was narrated by informant's father. Praveen was inimical to him. Hence this report was got lodged. After investigation final report was submitted, wherein protest petition was filed and statements of informant and other witnesses were got recorded then after impugned summoning for offence punishable u/s 307 I.P.C. was made. Against this, proceeding u/s 407 Cr.P.C. was got filed before this court, wherein this court directed for making a discharge application before trial court and discharge application was moved before trial court. But the same was dismissed vide impugned order with a mention that accused have not yet obtained bail from the court concerned and thus, this application was not maintainable till above stage because there was no evidence recorded u/s 244 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this application was rejected. It was misuse of process of court. Hence this proceeding.