Allahabad High Court
Sonu And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 June, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:94192
Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6364 of 2025
Applicant :- Sonu And 6 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicants is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 28.11.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.13153 of 2022, under sections 323, 504, 354 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) (F.T.C.) (Crime Against Women) Court/Room No.2 Deoria.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Instant complaint has lodged after about six months of the incident on account of previous enmity. The dispute arises on account of parking of Scooty. Cognizance and summoning by learned magistrate is without application of judicial mind.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicants' counsel and submitted that submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants is disputed question on facts which cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Cognizance and summoning by learned magistrate is just and proper and Investigating Officer has collected evidence against the applicants in the aforesaid sections.
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. Considered the arguments raised by both the parties. From the record, it is apparent that contents of complaint has supported the medical examination report. Witnesses and complainant have supported the prosecution story. No interference is warranted. The present 482 application of applicants- Sonu, Shamsul Haq @ Guddu, Ashif, Noor Alam, Sher Muhammad, Rustam @ Teepu & Abdul Haq is hereby, dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
9. However, if the applicants surrender before the concerned court within three weeks from today and applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922..
10.For the period of three weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.
Order Date :- 2.6.2025
SKD
