Allahabad High Court
Totaram And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 August, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:147013
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 431 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 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the Charge Sheet dated 12.05.2024 submitted by I.O. and Cognizance Order dated 19.07.2024 passed by learned A.C.J.M.-II, Pilibhit in Case No. 15287 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 132 of 2024, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Deoriya Kalan, District- Pilibhit, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-I, Pilibhit.
3. It is alleged in the first information report that on 23.04.2024 on account of some previous dispute, named accused persons started abusing the informant, thereafter, they assaulted the informant with lathi & danda. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicants have been implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. Applicants was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident. Instant first information report has been lodged with malicious intention only to harass the applicants. No offence under alleged sections is made out.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions raised by applicants' counsel and submits that submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage by this Court in exercise of power under Section 528 BNSS. Further, I.O. has collected material evidence against the applicants to prosecute them in the present case. First information report is supported by medical examination report as injured has received grievous injuries. Statements of witnesses recorded during investigation are also supporting the prosecution case.
5. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From perusal of first information report as well as other material evidence available on record, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicants. No case for interference by this Court is made out.
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 528 BNSS 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 528 BNSS 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 528 BNSS as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
8. The present application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
August 25, 2025
Aditya
