Allahabad High Court
Shiv Surat Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 August, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145654
Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2889 of 2025
Applicant :- Shiv Surat Singh And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Avesh Ahamad,Mohammed Iftekhar,Mohammed Salauddin
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned non-bailable warrant dated 17.12.2024 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Jaunpur, charge-sheet No.244 of 2020 dated 19.10.2020, cognizance/summoning order dated 10.12.2020 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.1200 of 2020 (State vs.Shiv Surat Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0268 of 2020, under sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Madiyahun, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Court No.12, Jaunpur.
3. It is alleged in the FIR that on 12.10.2020 accused persons assaulted the applicants, as a result thereof, they have received injuries. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submitted that instant FIR lodged with malice intention as applicants lodged FIR as Case Crime No.269 of 2020 in regard to same date of incident and present FIR lodged by opposite party no.2 is in counterblast and it is only to harass the applicants whereas applicants' side have received grievous injuries. Learned counsel for the applicants next submits that Investigating Officer has not collected material evidence to prosecute the applicants in the present case.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicants' counsel and submitted that submission raised by applicants' counsel are disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage and submitted that FIR lodged by applicants against opposite party no.2, proceeding is going on. Medical examination report and statement of the witnesses are supporting the prosecution story. Injured has received injury.
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. Considered the submission of both the parties. FIR lodged by opposite party no.2 is against the applicants prima-facie discloses offence against the applicants. Medical examination report is supported the prosecution story and at this stage, it cannot be observed that who was aggressor. No interference is warranted. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application of applicants- Shiv Surat Singh, Gaurav Singh, Saurabh Singh @ Saurav Kumar & Vaibhav Singh, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
Order Date :- 23.8.2025
SKD
