Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sushma Devi And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 August, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:147881
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 585 of 2025
Court No. - 72
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 entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case/S.T. No. 1714 of 2024 (State Versus Sushma Devi and another) arising out of case crime No. 0099 of 2020, Under Sections 323, 307, 504 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sarai Inayat, District Prayagraj as well as to quash the impugned charge sheet No. 160A of 2023 dated 04.06.2024 submitted by Investigating Officer and to quash the cognizance order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, District Prayagraj in the aforementioned case.
3. It is alleged in the FIR that named accused persons assaulted the injured with fire arm and injured sustained fire arm injuries.
4. Counsel for the applicants submits that allegation alleged in FIR is false and baseless and not supported y any medical examination report. As per medical examination report, injured was examined on 20.02.2020 at about 11:24 am but as per FIR version, injured received fire arm injury at 06:00 am on the same day. Instant FIR lodged on account of previous enmity. Cognizance and summoning by learned Magistrate is without application of judicial mind and applicants have been summoned after about four years of the incident.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicants' counsel and submits that on perusal of FIR, medical examination report and statement of witnesses, prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. It is not a case of false implication. Applicant was examined before seven years of the incident is false and baseless. Applicant was examined on 22.01.2020 at about 11:24 pm and his X-ray was done on 21.02.2020. and fracture was found with upper end lt. humerus with metallic dust shadow. Other submissions raised by applicants' counsel are dispute questions of fact, which cannot be examined at this stage, hence, applicants are not entitled for relief as prayed. 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 482application of applicants, Smt. Sushma Devi and Devraj Patel, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
August 26, 2025
Nitin Verma
