Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 109348 (ALL)

DEEPAK v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

A482/42399/2024 · 2025-05-01

Deepak Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70043 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42399 of 2024 Applicant :- Deepak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 10.04.2022, cognizance/summoning order dated 28.07.2023 as well as to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.35694 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.0120 of 2021 (State vs. Harsh and others), under sections 452, 393, 120B, 354(kha) I.P.C., Police Station Roravar, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.01, Aligarh. 3. It is alleged in the FIR that informant's daughter marriage was solemnized in the Gomti Marriage Hall, Aligarh where named accused persons entered and started preparing illegal video, when they were asked, they tried to run away outside and tried to theft gold chain of his wife. Informant and other persons caught them on the spot. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. All allegation alleged in the FIR is false and baseless, not supported by any evidence. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant is disputed question of facts, which cannot be decided at this stage. Applicant was arrested on the spot and one tamancha has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. 5. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that The impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed by this Court.the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage. 6. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 7. Considered the arguments raised by both the parties. Prima-facie offence is made out against the applicant. Submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant is disputed question of facts which cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. No interference is warranted. The present 482 application of applicant- Deepak is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 SKD Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad