Allahabad High Court
Vishal Jain vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 April, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56820
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18962 of 2024
Applicant :- Vishal Jain
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sujan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed today by learned AGA on behalf of the State, is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet no.75/2021 dated 25.02.2021, summoning order dated 29.03.2023 as well as to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.16945 of 2023 (State vs.Vishal) arising out of Case Crime No.1446 of 2018, under sections 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Tajganj, District Agra, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.
4. It is alleged in the FIR that the applicant, who was employed in the informant's hotel, has misappropriated amount from the period 24.12.2018 to 27.12.2018. Counsel for the applicant next submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. All allegation alleged in the FIR is false and baseless and statement of the witnesses have been recorded after about three years and, thereafter, charge-sheet has been submitted in the year 2021. Court has taken cognizance and issued summons against the applicant on 29.03.2023. From perusal of statement of informant and other witnesses recorded during investigation, no offence is made out against the applicant. He next submitted that on perusal of section 415 I.P.C., no case is made out against the applicant and learned magistrate without application of judicial mind has summoned the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Jas vs. State of U.P., 1970 0 Supreme (SC) 368 and has placed reliance upon paras 3 & 4 of the said judgment.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that submission of applicant is disputed questions of fact and from perusal of section 415 I.P.C., prima-facie offence is made out against the applicant. From the record, it is also apparent that the applicant has misappropriated the amount, hence, applicant is not entitled for relief as prayed. Moreover, charge-sheet has been submitted and Investigating Officer has collected evidence and issued summon against the applicant.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Considered the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA. In view of the Apex Court judgement in Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreres Reddy & another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642 decided on August, 7, 2023, paras 5 to 8 are relevant for the said purpose. The same are being quoted below:-
"5. Learned Single Judge of the High Court has elaborately discussed the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
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.
8. The scope of interference, while quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that too for a serious offence like Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is very limited. The Court would exercise its power to quash the proceedings only if it finds that taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all.
9. At the stage of deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the High Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in the charge-sheet. The High Court by the impugned order has done exactly the same."
10. No interference is warranted. The present 482 application of applicant- Vishal Jain, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
Order Date :- 17.4.2025
SKD
