Allahabad High Court
Smt. Manju Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 August, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:150031
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 44658 of 2024
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet No.401 of 2024 dated 24.09.2024, summoning/cognizance order dated 09.10.2024 as well as entire proceeding of S.T. No.1398 of 2024 (State vs. Dev Prakash and others) arising out of Case Crime No.427 of 2024, under sections 105, 110, 126(2), 223, 238, 132, 121(1), 61(2) B.N.S. & Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Sikandrarau, District Hathras, pending in the court of District Judge, Hathras.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is alleged in the FIR that a Satsang Sewa was organized by named accused persons on 02.07.2024 and on that programme, more than 80,000 persons collected and on account of mis-management various persons received injuries and died on the spot. Applicant having no concern with the alleged incident. Applicant is Sewadar and not organizer of the programme. Investigating Officer has not collected any evidence and recorded statement of private witnesses and police persons. All allegation alleged in the FIR is absurd and no criminal inference can be drawn. Cognizance taken by the learned magistrate is without application of judicial mind.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submitted that on perusal of FIR, prima-facie offence is made out against the applicant. Applicant is one of the member of the organization and, moreover, present application is not supported by any material documents collected by the Investigating Officer. Only two documents, FIR and charge-sheet have been filed with the application. From perusal of FIR, prima-facie offence is made out against the applicant and learned magistrate rightly applied his judicial mind.
5. The Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107 has held in para No.14 as follows:-
"14. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case."
6. The Apex Court in Priti Saraf and another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another reported in AIR 2021 SC 1531 has held that:
"To exercise powers under Section 482, complaint in its entirety have to be examined on basis of allegation made in complaint/FIR/Charge sheet. High Court at that stage not under an obligation to go into matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on face of complaint/FIR/charge sheet to be taken into consideration without any critical examination of same. Offence ought to appear ex facie on complaint/FIR/charge sheet and other documentary evidence, on record. It is thus settled that exercise of inherent power of High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinize complaint/FIR/charge sheet in deciding whether case is rarest of rare case, to scuttle prosecution at its inception. Whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing such proceedings."
7. The Apex Court in its judgment passed in the case of Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642, para 6 and 7 are quoted herein below:-
"6. Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at the stage of such trial.
7. Such an exercise, in our considered view, is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C."
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Considered the submission of both the parties. Trial court took cognizance on 09.02.2024 and issue process against the applicant. Investigating Officer has collected material evidence and issued process against the applicant. Learned magistrate has rightly taken cognizance and issued summon against the applicant. No interference is warranted. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application of applicant- Smt.Manju Devi, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
August 27, 2025
SKD
