Allahabad High Court
Meen Ahmed And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:178965
Court No. - 78
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22381 of 2024
Applicant :- Meen Ahmed And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Siddharth Shanker Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 19.01.2023, cognizance/summoning order dated 05.04.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3258 of 2023 titled State v. Salman and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 332 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 353, 333, 307, 308, 34 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, registered at P.S. Kotwali, District Ghaziabad.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants states that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant no.1's daughter was killed by her in-laws by administering poison, therefore, there was a dispute between the applicants and the in-laws of the applicant no.1's daughter. He next submits that there is no independent witness of the alleged incident and the injuries are simple in nature, therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has drawn attention of the Court towards the contents of FIR, which prima facie fulfilled the ingredients of offence alleged in the FIR. He submits that contention raised by counsel for the applicants is merely a defence, which cannot be looked into at this stage.
5. In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Similarly no such illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out in the impugned summoning order, so as to warrant any interference by this court in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Further, there is no illegality in the summoning order. The summoning order has been passed after taking into consideration the material collected by the police, during investigation. The truthfulness of the material collected by the Investigating Officer cannot be tested at this stage. On examination of the contents of FIR, prima facie, the ingredients of Sections 147, 148, 353, 333, 307, 308, 34 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, are made out so as to warrant any interference by this court in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; 1992 SCC (Cr.), 426.
7. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.11.2024
Shafique
Justice Vinod Diwakar
