Allahabad High Court
Ravi Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 August, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134284
Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43524 of 2024
Applicant :- Ravi Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Katyaini Singh,Shashi Dhar Goswami
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard Sri Shashi Dhar Goswami, 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 charge-sheet dated 01.08.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 05.09.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Mau as well as entire proceeding of Session case no.801 of 2024, (State Vs.Ravi Singh), arising out of Case Crime No.233 of 2024, Under Sections 304 and 504 of I.P.C., Police Station-Sarai Lakhansi, District-Mau, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Mau.
3. It is alleged in the FIR that on 29.06.2024 at about 04.34 pm, a vehicle-Safari, driven by applicant, came from back side rashly and dashed the informant's one minor daughter, wife and one niece, in which, his minor daughter, aged about 15 years and his wife, aged about 35 years, died on the spot and his niece, aged about 12 years suffered serious injuries, who immediately rushed to hospital where, looking to the critical condition, doctors referred to Varanasi.
4. Sri Goswami, applicant's counsel submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention. Charge sheet submitted U/s 304 and 504 I.P.C. He further submits that proceedings U/s 304 I.P.C. and offence under the Motor Accident Claim petition cannot go simultaneously. Cognizance taken by learned Judicial Magistrate is without application of judicial mind.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that submission raised by applicant's counsel are disputed question of facts which cannot be adjudicated at this stage. He further submits that applicant driven the car rashly and negligently which dashed the minor daughter, wife and niece of the informant, as a result thereof, his minor daughter and wife died on spot and niece went into critical condition. Informant, in his statement, specifically stated that applicant deliberately hit the minor daughter, wife and niece, moreover, applicant's counsel submission for charge sheet submitted U/s 304 I.P.C. is against the evidence, as prima facie offence is made out U/s 304-A I.P.C. is not tenable. In view of that, at the time of framing of charges, learned Magistrate, after examining the evidence, framed the charges. No interference is warranted.
6. 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 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-Ravi Singh, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
Order Date :- 8.8.2025
Nitin Verma
(Justice Deepak Verma)
