Uday Singh And Another v. State Of Haryana

  

       

  





 !"#

!

!$%#&'

())&% % $!&'*  

   &*&'+&

!) ,)
)

 '$!$-!.&

! /)
)

    01 )   2        



     !

 "

   !  



# 



2  3 ) $ %

       &'( ) )   * +, - .  /./0(/(0       1 )     2 3   ./&

 ,)

   4

1  )   1 6 07'7 ## (/0.9 :  

 ;)<1 =>    6*   !  ! 

# (0 +,  *  8  @09 %  !

A

# 2  

 ! "  2 3  B   2 3 ! !  #   # 

#    C  D

2 3  0.0((/(/ !  B  ! 8  - 09    #  !  !  

   ! "  %   %  -  (/ E (0

# !  "#

2   

! 



# "   %  

 !

!

# 2     !  # 1 #  %    %

? /&/0(/(0  6  

 ! (( D /&/0(/(0

#   ! %  ,%  ! 

- #F  G ) #

$ 3 #  1

  

6 #  &/@./    !

    D

 H  #  

    !      %  

 %  3   %  B  !    8  9      6 !  #  , % !        %

 !   #   3 !   %      ! 



 , % !    !  

#  6 3 %  B  !   !

 #    6 % H ,%

 

#  



 %  !     6 %   #   6   #

   D      6 #

         #

#  

       #     

! ! 



 4 -    %   !

#  %  #

%  %



#

) %  

  % @     ./& E ./5

,) 6  

)<1  ) !     6

# 6  )  & ,   6 

        

  %   !

    6  #  ,  !  #     



! - (

 +, ! 

!      J #   #   #    ! G   %    %   @(





  0&/.(/(/  6   )   )@04.&@(/07  

  6 %





  )   *  +, - &45  (50/(/0I   ./5 4&

 ,)  48098 9  4809 89

 )<1  !  

A  G      

#   !

   +, - (&7  (4/5(/(0 

 ,)    480989

 )<1  % 



@4 %   

       #

!  

  %      3 !    

  #  .  !   !        6 

 6 

#   %    %  

)   

  !  #   +, %

  6

  !    # %

   #

 % 

   050 ) ) G     6#  

 

3    6      3 !   %    

    3 

 

 )<1          #

 # 

 5 6#      @6

3   I ) 



   

     +,  !

A % * 6   ) 



 @(   !      6 

 !  ! - 4

    6  !

  *    +,  

@( %   



* ! +, - &45  (50/(/0I  6A@#

   %    !

  

#3    

 )<1  %

  6 #  !

#   %

   %       6   %    6 % '  %   # 6     +,  !   

#  A  6 *    #   !  #     #    

 7 G

  

   

  /&/'(/(0   )@@4/'55@(/(0 8  @49 %    

 6  % !

 

     +, - (&7  (4/5(/(0        2 3  B   2 3 

 ,) E   480989

 )<1

#3   % !

   #      

)<1  *    6  6

 +, 6  D

 6 %  3

 0/ ,       

  6     %      6 

#  # 6 A



!   %   ! %  #

%  %  



 ! 

#  1

 

3     3 !  

  % 

   6       !

#   !

  ! %  &/@./      # !

!  !

!  #

# 

 

! ! - &

00



#   

#   !          

* !

 +,F    ! 

) %     6     )  



   12.

In Kaptan Singh Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, LL 2021 SC 379, it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that: ".........However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial.

As held by this Court in the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel (Supra) in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the Investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an Appellate Court. It is further observed and held that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed.

It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the Investigating Authority at such stage to probe and then of the Court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. 9.2 In the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (Supra) after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal (Supra), it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in section itself.

It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Arvind Khanna (Supra), Managipet (Supra) and in the case of XYZ (Supra), referred to hereinabove." ! - .

13.

It is, thus, clear that when the statements of witnesses have already been recorded during investigation, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry, the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Besides, High Court can not go into merits of the allegations.

14.

In present case, petitioners have not given any challenge to the final investigation report under Section 173 CrPC filed after conclusion of investigation, implicating the petitioners with the alleged crime. 0.

   6# 

     

 ) 

      )    %  6  #

   %  !  #   +,  6 

% 

)  6   

  !  

 1       

  #     % 6

=6  # )  
 

       

 !

  *  +,

     6  #  42  5  &6'- '

/3

 - 3 1A H 3 !<   K<-

H 

6 K<-

! - 5