Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 95998 (ALL)

ASHISH SRIVASTAVA @ ASHU v. State of UP AND 2 OTHERS

A482/31144/2024 · 2025-04-16

Deepak Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56897 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31144 of 2024 Applicant :- Ashish Srivastava @ Ashu Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajnish Kumar Srivastava,Siddharth Srivastava 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 and quash the summoning order dated 30.01.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya, as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 419 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.155 of 2023 (State Vs. Ashish Srivastava @ Ashu), under section 354(c), 384 IPC, Police Station- Phaphund, District- Auraiya. 3. It is alleged in the first information report that applicant, who is maternal brother of the informant, has captured nude video of the informant, thereafter, since 2020, applicant is blackmailing the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Instant first information report has been lodged malicious intention to harass the applicant. There is no cogent evidence against the applicant to prosecute him in the present case. Instant first information report has been lodged after about three years. There is family dispute between the parties. Allegation alleged in the first information report is false & baseless and without support of any cogent evidence. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant and applicant is maternal brother of the informant. I.O. has collected sufficient evidence against the applicant to prosecute him in the present case. He next submitted that arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant are disputed questions of the facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (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. The present 482 application of applicant- Ashish Srivastava @ Ashu, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Aditya Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad