Indal Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 1756 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Indal Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 July, 2025

Author: Deepak Verma

Bench: Deepak Verma

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110040
 
Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35953 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Indal Singh And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Dubey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 13.09.2023, cognizance order dated 15.11.2023 (corrected order dated 18.10.2024) as well as the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 5257 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 103 of 2023, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504, 506, 306, 120B IPC, Police Station- Saifai, District- Etawah, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District- Etawah.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that initially the first information report was registered under Sections 302, 120B IPC, thereafter, Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Sections 306, 120B IPC against accused applicants. Trial Court vide order dated 15.11.2023 issued summons against the applicants under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 IPC. The impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 15.11.2023 has been filed at page 181 of the present application. Learned counsel for the applicants next submits that cognizance/summoning order passed by learned Magistrate in the aforesaid case crime is illegal and without considering the material available on record as first information report was registered under Section 302, 120B IPC. The Trial Court without perusing the evidence available on record that first information report is registered under Section 302, 120B IPC and I.O. has submitted charge-sheet under Section 306, 120B IPC, in arbitrary manner issued summons. He next submits that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after getting knowledge that summons have been issued in different sections, which are having no concern with the present case, immediately corrected the Sections 306, 120B IPC in place of Sections 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 IPC by order dated 18.10.2024. The amended cognizance/summoning order is filed at page-10 of the amendment application. He next submits that Chief Judicial Magistrate/Court concerned without perusing the entire record and evidence submitted by Investigating Officer, in most arbitrary and illegal manner issued summons, now, again without going through the record summons have been issued. Moreover, the Court concerned has no power to modify its earlier order, the modification of the earlier order is illegal in pursuance of provisions provided under Section 362 Cr.P.C., which is reproduced as under:-

"362. Court not to alter judgment. Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."

4. He next submits that there is specific bar for reviewing its own order by a criminal court. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance over the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakishan Varde; AIR 2014 Supreme Court 620 decided on 25 November, 2013 as well as the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2023 (Atique Ahmad vs. State of U.P.) decided on 19.01.2023.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants and submits that, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicants.

6. Learned counsel for the informant has supplied a certified copy of the order dated 18.10.2024, wherein, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah has observed that court has also considered the provisions provided under Section 362 Cr.P.C. and found that clerical and typing mistakes can be removed and in para-7 of the order dated 18.10.2024, it has been observed that charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 306, 120B IPC and court has taken cognizance under aforesaid sections and issued summons under aforesaid sections but due to inadvertent typing mistake Sections 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 IPC have been wrongly incorporated in place of Sections 306, 120B IPC. Further, power is vested in the court by Section 362 Cr.P.C. to correct clerical and typing mistakes, as such, court has corrected the order dated 15.11.2023 and issued summons under Sections 306, 120B IPC. Other Submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants are disputed questions of facts, which cannot be considered and examined by this Court at this stage in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From perusal of record, this Court finds no illegality in the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magisrate, Etawah correcting its earlier order dated 15.11.2023. The court has power to make correction in the order, if it is found that mistake is due to typing or clerica. By the order dated 15.11.2023, cognizance has been taken on offences, under which charge-sheet has been submitted. Prosecution moved correction application that by typing mistake Sections 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 IPC have been inadvertently typed. The court on the same day corrected the typographical mistake. Correction has been made in the presence of both the counsels. Further, the judgments on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the applicants, are not applicable in the present case. 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.

8. 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 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

9. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 10.7.2025

Aditya