Allahabad High Court
Sachin Alias Sachin Kumar Alias Sachin ... 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:53530
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23534 of 2024
Applicant :- Sachin Alias Sachin Kumar Alias Sachin Verma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ragini Gupta,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 quash the order dated 30.10.2023 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Devision), Auraiya, order dated 20.02.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge-I, Auraiya and entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.736 of 2019 (State Vs. Sachin Verma) arising out of Case Crime No. 219 of 2019, under sections 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Achhalda, District-Auraiya.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that Allegation in the FIR is false and baseless and not supported by material evidence. I.O. has submitted charge sheet, thereafter, learned Magistrate without application of judicial mind, took cognizance and summoned the applicant. Applicant filed discharge application U/s 239 Cr.P.C., the same was rejected by Addl. Civil Judge (SD), Auraiya vide order dated 30.10.2023, thereafter against the order dated 30.10.2023, applicant filed revision, the same was also dismissed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Auraiya, vide order dated 20.02.2024. He further submitted that learned civil judge, without aplication of judicial mind, dismissed the revision of the applicant. Prima facie, no offence is made out agaisnt the applicant.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that the order passed by trial court is just and proper and do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and no interference is warranted, at this stage.
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. Considering the argument raised by applicant's counsel and perused the record, it is evident that prima facie offence is made out. The Apex Court in its judgment passed in the case of Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642, para 6 and 7 are quoted herein below:-
" 6. Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at the stage of such trial.
7. Such an exercise, in our considered view, is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction 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 and another, 2023 Live Law (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 482 application of applicant-Sachin @ Sachin Kumar @ Sachin Verma, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
Order Date :- 11.4.2025
Nitin Verma
