Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64394 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4375 of 2025 Applicant :- Deepak Kumar And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mrityunjay Singh,Samir Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for parties. 2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case no. 219 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Deepak Kumar & others) as well as charge sheet dated 11.07.2024 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 16.07.2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 164 of 2024, under Section 395, 412 IPC for applicant nos. 1 & 2 and under Section 395, 412 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act for applicant nos. 3 to 5, PS- Baldev, District Mathura pending in court of learned Additional Civil Judge C.D./Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 4, Mathura. 3. It is contended by learned counsels for the applicants that in the present case, the alleged incident as per the FIR, involves attempted theft of a buffalo, along with minor scuffles but the essential ingredients of Section 395 IPC (Dacoity) are not fulfilled in the present case. Submission of impugned charge sheet under Section 395 IPC is gross misuse of judicial process and causes unnecessary harassment to the applicants. Offence of dacoity requires an organized group of five or more persons, using force or fear, to commit robbery or to assist in committing a robbery. However, the facts of this case indicate that offence was limited to theft (Section 379 IPC) where no organized intent or force was used. Learned concerned court committed gross error at the time of passing impugned summoning order dated 16.07.2024 because it ignored the aforesaid facts of present case hence the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application and supported the impugned cognizance order dated 16.07.2024. 5. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court finds that ground raised by learned counsel for applicants regarding fulfillment of essential ingredients of an offence requires proper appreciation of evidence, recording of statements etc. which is subject matter of trial and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, no sufficient ground have been made out to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under 482 Cr.P.C. 6. In view of the foregoing, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However applicants will be at liberty to avail all the other legal remedies available at law Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad