Allahabad High Court
Ghanshyam Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 April, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53626
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29168 of 2024
Applicant :- Ghanshyam Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 25.12.2023, under sections 418, 420, 409 I.P.C. submitted against the applicant in case crime no. 11 of 2023, Police Station Maduwadih, District Varuna (Commissionerate Varanasi), as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4756 of 2024, pending before the court of A.C.J.M.-II, Varanasi including cognizance/summoning order dated 23.01.2024 passed by A.C.J.M.-II, Varanasi, arising out of Case Crime No. 11 of 2023, under section 418, 409, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Maduwadih, District Varuna.
3. It is alleged in the first information report that informant claims himself as Branch Manager of M/s Katariya Carrier, which it having its main office in Transport Nagar Kanpur Nagar and branch office at 90 Maheshpur Lahartara Varanasi. It is further alleged that on audit, it was found that the applicant has given hand written receipt to the customers in place of computerized receipt and has misappropriated Rs. 26,34,074/-. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Allegation alleged in the first information report is not supported by any material evidence and it does not come under purview of Section 409 IPC. Learned Magistrate without applying his judicial mind issued notice under Sections 418, 409, 420 IPC against the applicant. I.O. has not collected any material evidence to prosecute the applicant in the present case.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant are disputed question of facts, which cannot be considered and examined at this stage in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642.
5. The Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107 has held in para No.14 as follows:-
"14. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case."
6. The Apex Court in Priti Saraf and another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another has held that:
"To exercise powers under Section 482, complaint in its entirety have to be examined on basis of allegation made in complaint/FIR/Charge sheet. High Court at that stage not under an obligation to go into matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on face of complaint/FIR/charge sheet to be taken into consideration without any critical examination of same. Offence ought to appear ex facie on complaint/FIR/charge sheet and other documentary evidence, on record. It is thus settled that exercise of inherent power of High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinize complaint/FIR/charge sheet in deciding whether case is rarest of rare case, to scuttle prosecution at its inception. Whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing such proceedings."
6. 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 applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. 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.
8. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.4.2025
Aditya
