Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79377 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3202 of 2025 Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Patel,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dinesh Kumar Pandey,G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. The present application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 18.07.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 10.08.2023 as well as the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No.701 of 2023 (State Vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta), arising out of Case Crime No.250 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Maharajganj, pending in the Court of Special Judge, Exclusive Special Court (SC/ST Act), Maharajganj. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged on 19.05.2023 at about 19:04 hrs., under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act with the allegations that on 11.05.2023 at about 01:00 p.m., the opposite party no.2 sat on the shop of one Ram Saware to save himself from the heat. The applicant reached there and started abusing the opposite party no.2 using caste indicative words and when the opposite party no.2 objected to the same, he took up chair and threw it upon him. It has further been alleged that the opposite party no.2 is nearly 65 years old person and retired from Government Service. There is an old enmity between the parties. The opposite party no.2 was also assaulted with hand and fists by the applicant. The shopkeeper Ram Saware intervened and saved the opposite party no.2. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted pursuant to which applicant has been summoned. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present case has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations due to ulterior motive. The opposite party no.2 had taken money from the applicant, which he has no intention to return, therefore, to save his skin, the present case has been lodged to exert pressure upon the applicant. It is a case of malicious prosecution. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He, therefore, submits that the charge-sheet, summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that from the version of FIR and statements of charge sheet witnesses, prima facie, offence is made out. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also states that the statement of P.W.1 has also been recorded before the trial court. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the charge sheet is of the year 2023 and nothing has been mentioned as to why there was a delay/laches in filing the present application. Therefore, the application may also be dismissed on the ground of laches. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicant and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:- (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866, (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122, (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682, (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454, (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and lastly (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143. In the case of Northern Indian Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh & ors., reported in AIR 2003 SC 234, the Apex Court has held that the High Court cannot ignore the delay and laches in approaching the writ court and there must be satisfactory explanation by the petitioner as how he could not come to the Court well in time. Further in the the case of Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed & Anr. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 460, the Apex Court has held that the High Court should dismiss the writ petition on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 18.07.2023 and summoning order dated 10.08.2023 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Jitendra/- Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad