HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7908 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order and cognizance order dated 1.12.2021 along with charge sheet no.01 of 2021 and entire proceeding of Case No.97080 of 2021 proceeded by F.I.R. No.0067 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Govind Bansal) under Sections 279, 427 I.P.C. Police Station Jankipuram, Lucknow, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), District Lucknow. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that a complaint was lodged bearing F.I.R. No.0067 of 2020 under Sections 279, 427 I.P.C. Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow whereas the driver was not arrested on spot and the mobile number, which was provided by the complainant, when traced out by the police, on the other end, the person, namely, Vijay Kumar son of Buddhichand, father of the present applicant, responded and stated that on the date of accident, he was driving the vehicle, as such, in fact, the applicant is no way involved in committing the offence. In addition, he argued that F.I.R. was lodged 45 days, after the incident and there is material contradiction in the statements of the witnesses, which have been recorded in the police station. Therefore, the criminal proceedings Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Govind Bansal .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) against the applicant may be quashed. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that subsequently the statement of the father of the applicant, namely, Vijay Kumar was recorded wherein he stated that on the date of incident, the vehicle was being driven by the present applicant and the applicant has also stated that on the date of incident, i.e., on 27.12.2019, when the incident took place, he was driving the vehicle. He argued that discrepancies can only be found out after going through the police diary as well as the evidence available before the trial court, thus, no interference is warranted. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that incident is said to have taken place on 27.12.2019 whereas from the statements of the present applicant as well as the father of the applicant, it is evident that the date of incident is of 12.2.2020 and when the police called on mobile phone, which was provided by the complainant, the father of the complainant stated that he was driving the car, thus, there is disputed question of facts in the statements which can only be examined by the trial court as has been held in Judgements rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.N. John Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7. Para 39 of the aforesaid Judgement reads as under:- "39. We have also perused the order dated 13.10.2015 passed by the High Court in the earlier case filed by Mrs. Susan John, the co-accused. wherein the High Court declined to quash the charge sheet No. 162 of 2015 dated 20.6.2015 in the same Case Crime No. 290 of 2015 pending before the Court of CJM, Varanasi, on the ground that perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at that stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant, and all the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by the court under Section 482 of the CrPC, and at that stage only the prime facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the cases of R P Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866: State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra); State of Bihar v. PP Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri) 192; and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq. Saraful Haq. 2005 SCC (Cri) 283." A482 No. 7908 of 2025 2 In view of the above, the instant application is hereby disposed of with liberty to the applicant to move discharge application before the trial court while raising all the grounds within fifteen days and if such an application is moved before the trial court, the same shall be considered and decided by the trial court, within further 60 days. September 19, 2025 Ram Murti A482 No. 7908 of 2025 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench