Randhir And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 7113 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 75
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5867 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Randhir And 4 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

None for the petitioners, though link was sent to Sri Anurag Upadhyay, learned counsel for petitioners. Sri Janardan Prakash, learned AGA for the State is present.

With the help of Sri Janardan Prakash, learned AGA, petition is perused.

This petition has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 20 of 2020, State vs. Randhir, arising out of Case Crime No. 177 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Kaptanganj, District-Azamgarh and chargesheet no. A-169/20 dated 18.11.2020, with respect to the applicants, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 20, Azamgarh.

Sri Janardan Prakash submits that allegations made in the FIR, discloses commission of a cognizable offence and they are supported by statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., given by Amar Nath s/o Sant Lal, Shyam Dulari d/o Amar Nath and Shila w/o Vishal. Reliance is placed on judgment of Supreme Court in International Advanced Research Centre For Powder Matallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) and others Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics Private Limited and another, (2016) 1 SCC 348, wherein it is held that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is, as to whether uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint establish the offence. The High Court being superior court of the State, should refrain from analysing the materials which are yet to be adduced and seen in their true perspective. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C., should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to be used sparingly only in rare cases. It is further held by exercising inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not for the High Court to appreciate the evidence and its truthfulness or sufficiency inasmuch as it is the function of the trial court. Therefore, it is submitted that no ground for quashing is made out.

After going through the record, available in file, and the law laid down by Supreme Court in International Advanced Research Centre For Powder Matallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) and others Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics Private Limited and another (supra), I am of the opinion that no ground is made out for exercise of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Therefore, petition fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 6.7.2021

Vikram/-