Allahabad High Court
Kasim And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 August, 2023
Bench: Prashant Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164965
Court No. - 93
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27563 of 2023
Applicant :- Kasim And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Nasir,Maimoona Fatima
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed praying for quashing/setting aside the order dated 01.07.2023 in Case No. 2311/2023 (State v. Kasim and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 90 of 2021 under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Aligarh.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants states that a financial dispute had taken place between applicant no. 3 and opposite party no. 2 and FIR has been lodged. He claims that though as per prosecution story, fire-arm has been used but the injury does not substantiate the same. The investigation has culminated into a charge-sheet, thereafter, the applicants had moved a discharge application which was rejected.
4. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the record, I find that as per the allegations levelled in the FIR and statements recorded, prima facie, cognizable offence is made out against the applicants. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view, that appreciation of evidence is function of trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction to put an end to the process of trial provided in the law. It is well settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but has to be used sparingly, only in such 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 the FIR or chargesheet and the material relied in support of the same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at pre-trial stage, which can be more appropriately gone into by the trial court at the appropriate stage.
5. At the stage of taking cognizance of the case and summoning the accused, the court below is not required to go into the merit and demerit of the case. Genuineness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be even determined at the stage of summoning the accused.
6. This Court does not find that this case fall in a category as recognized by the Apex Court for quashing the criminal proceeding of the trial Court at pre-trial stage. Considering the facts, circumstances and nature of allegations against the applicants in this case, the cognizable offence is made out. At this stage it would not be appropriate to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. The impugned criminal proceeding under the facts of this case cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court.
7. The relief as sought by the applicants through the instant application is hereby refused.
8. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.8.2023
Rama Kant
