Allahabad High Court
Jaipal And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 August, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130237
Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20237 of 2020
Applicant :- Jaipal And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Jaysingh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Despite service of notice upon the Opposite Party No. 2, none has appeared to oppose the present 482 Cr.P.C. application.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 55 of 2019 (Smt Kesharbai vs. Jaipal and others), pending before learned Special Judge SC/ST Act/Additional District & Session Judge, Lalitpur in pursuance of impugned order dated 21.10.2020 thereby the learned court below has issued process against the applicants and applicants has been summoned to face trial for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)Da, Dha of SC/ST Act related to Police Station- Bar, District- Lalitpur.
4. Instant complaint filed through application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that concerned police of police station lift the complainant and Puniyawari wife of Delli from their house and whole day kept in police station, in meantime, at about 4:00 PM applicants picked up 10 bags of wheat kept in the house and they also carried away other grains kept in the house. Accused-applicants used caste abusing words.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Instant complaint has been lodged with malicious intention only to harass the applicants. On perusal of contents of complaint and statements of witnesses recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., no offence under alleged sections is made out against the applicants. Allegations alleged in the complaint are on account of some civil nature dispute with regard to installation of pillars/demarcation of boundaries. He next submits that summoning by learned Magistrate, is without application of judicial mind.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the arguments raised by applicants' counsel and submits that arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be considered and examined at this stage by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record. From perusal of contents of complaint as well as statements recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., prima facie, offence is made out against the applicants. 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.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, rejected.
9. However, if the applicants surrenders before the concerned court within three weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922.
10. For the period of three weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.
Order Date :- 4.8.2025
Aditya
