Allahabad High Court
Shariq vs State Of U.P.And Another on 23 April, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61026
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40574 of 2024
Applicant :- Shariq
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Abnish Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard Sri Abnish Kumar, 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 cognizance/summoning order dated 18.04.2022 and the entire proceeding arising of out of Charge Sheet no.02 of 2022 dated 13.04.2022 submitted in case crime no.0383 of 2021 under section 420,467,468,471,409 and 411 I.P.C., P.S. Mainather, District-Moradabad, Case no.8043 of 2022 State of U.P. versus Majloom and others pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-6, Moradabad.
3. According to FIR, informant runs a factory of making led after purchasing scrap of old batteries, on 03.12.2021, the informant ordered to purchase battery scrap from battery scrap seller Mohd. Ashfaq and Mohd Siraj, which was carried by truck owner/driver bearing No.UP 21 BN 8214, then he came to know that truck driver had sold the scrap to others with the help of co-accused, which was valuing Rs.20,72,520/-. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention. Applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. Applicant is not named in the FIR. Applicant's name surfaced in the statement of co-accused. During arrest, Rs.2,700/- has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Applicant is not directly involved in the present case. No offence under the alleged sections is made out. I.O. submitted charge sheet under the aforesaid sections and learned Magistrate took cognizance on police report and issued summon on 18.04.2022 against the applicant.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that submission raised by applicant's counsel is disputed question of facts which cannot be entertained at this stage, moreover, applicant's name surfaced in the statement of co-accused and his involvement in the present case cannot be denied. Learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicant in the present case, hence, summoning order contains no illegality.
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. 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.
7. The present 482 application of applicant-Shariq, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
Order Date :- 23.4.2025
Nitin Verma
