AMAR SARAN,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing the charge sheet and consequential proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2410 of 2009 State v. S.M, Surur Ali Abidi, arising out of case crime No. 138 of 2009, under sections 307, 406, 504 IPC, P.S. Thakurganj, Lucknow, which is pend­ing in the Court of Special Addl. Chief Ju­dicial Magistrate, CBI (AP), Lucknow. The allegations in the FIR were that the opposite party No. 2 was approached by the applicant, who told him that he would get him a job if he makes arrangement for Rs. one lac. At his instance, the opposite party No. 2 has arranged Rs. 40,000/and given it to the applicant at his home. But when he did not get the job as assured by the applicant, he was repeatedly approach­ing the applicant for return of money. On 17.3.2009 at about 9.30 P.M. when the opposite party No. 2 was going towards Husainabad, the applicant and one other person, who were going on a Motor-cycle stopped him. The applicant abused him and caught hold of his collar and the appli­cant took out a country made pistol from his waist and fired on the opposite party No. 2.
(2.) THE opposite party No. 2 was medically examined at K.G.M.U, Lucknow at 11,00 P.M. The medical report shows abrasion on the right side of the back. The patient was referred to Emergency Ward. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant tha,t the whole FIR and the charge sheet have been filed in a mala fide manner. He further argued that no injury was re­ceived by the applicant and the document in this respect is a forged document be­cause Khokha of 315 bore was found on the spot which completely destroys the prosecution case. Elaborating his contention, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party No. 2 had a criminal history and is a close associates of opposite party No. 5, who is a Minister in the present gov­ernment. I see no force in these arguments of learned Counsel for the applicant. The mere fact that some empty cartridge of 315 bore country made pistol was found on the spot would certainly not belie the prosecution case, when the injured eye-witnesses has specifically stated that the applicant had fired on him. Also the mere fact that the IO has not made the doctor as one of the witnesses in the charge sheet. This is a negligence on the part of the I.O, which cannot provide any ground for quashing the charge sheet or consequential proceedings thereof. It is next argued by learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant had moved some applications prior to the occurrence before the higher authorities. He also moved some applications under the Right to Information Act and thereafter he moved an application through his daughter before the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, New Delhi, which can possi­bly have no bearing on the eye-witness ac­count which is forthcoming. The applicant has ample opportunity to raise his defence during trial. It is important to mention that nowadays, a tendency is developed to link the complainant with the party in power and raise allegations that the entire process is mala fide.
(3.) IN support of his contention, learned Counsel for the applicant has cited Harishchandra Prasad Mani and others v. State of Jharkhand and another, 2007 (57) ACC 856 (SC) = 2007 (51) AIC 100 (SC) It was a case where the Court reached a conclusion -that there is not even an iota of evidence to con­nect the accused with the evidence and also there was no material to show that the poi-spn had been administered to the deceased. The next case cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant is Parminder Kaur v. State of U.P and another, 2009 (67) ACC 658 (SC) wherein the Court observed that the respondent could not show how the appellant could be benefited in any manner by changing the dates. Both the cases are distinguishable from the pres­ent case. I find no force in this petition, under section 482 Cr.P.C and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed.;