HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1947 of 2021 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet no. 01 of 2020 dated 15.03.2020 registered as Criminal Case No. 272 of 2020 (State Vs. Dhirendra Kumar Mishra) arising out of Case Crime No. 11 of 2020 under Section 279/304 A I.P.C. Police Station Kurey Bhar, District Sultanpur pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.21, District Sultanpur as well as to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant is working on the post of ATMO Executive in Securevalue India Ltd. at Gurgaon, Haryana, who had purchased a Verna Car bearing its Registration No. DL 8 CZ 6730 from DMW Exports Pvt. Ltd. C/o Ravi Motors, Delhi on 29.12.2020, which vehicle was sent to his native place. Learned counsel further argued that on 13.01.2020, when the applicant was on duty at his working place in Delhi, he received information that his vehicle was being driven by Rajnish Kumar Agrahari S/o Suresh Kumar Agrahari and an accident took place from the said vehicle, as a result, F.I.R. of the instant case has been lodged against against unknown person. He further submits that during Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, Rama Shanker Dwivedi, Vijay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dhirendra Kumar Mishra .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And Anr. .....Opposite Party(s) the course of investigation the statements of independent witnesses namely Ram Karan Yadav, Sanjay and Ram Sahai were recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C., and they have stated that the incident had taken place on 13.01.2020, therefter the driver ran away from the spot. Learned counsel next submits that the Investigating Officer on his own recorded the confessional statement of the applicant on 15.03.2020 and thereafter, submitted charge sheet merely on the basis of the confessional statement of the applicant. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the ground that he is the owner of the vehicle in question and that the Investigating Officer without considering the properly investigating the matter submitted charge sheet upon which, the learned Magistrate too, in the most mechanical manner took cognizance and summoned the applicant. 4. At this stage, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant involves adjudication of a plea of alibi, factual dispute and appraisal of evidence. 5. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, 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. 6. The reliefs as sought by the applicant is refused. 7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicant and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicant by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicant. A482 No. 1947 of 2021 2 9. As the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific direction need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex court. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off. December 10, 2025 S.Ali A482 No. 1947 of 2021 3 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench