Allahabad High Court
Satish Chandra Dhar Dubey 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:94276
Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15581 of 2025
Applicant :- Satish Chandra Dhar Dubey
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Prabodh Dubey,Ravi Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard Sri Arvind learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the present charge-sheet dated 07.04.2021 and entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.16052 of 2023, (State Vs. Satish Chandra Dhar Dubey) arising out of Case Crime No. 491 of 2017, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., P.S.-Cantt, District-Gorakhpur as well as cognizance order dated 16.03.2023.
3. It is alleged in the FIR that informant executed power of attorney in favour of applicant in the year 2014, thereafter, applicant executed agreement to sell in favour of co-accused after making forged signature, after getting knowledge of this fact, instant FIR has been lodged. He further submitted that agreement between applicant and co-accused was executed in the year 2011, whereas, power of attorney has given in the year 2014.
4. Applicant's counsel submitted that prima facie, no offence under the aforesaid sections, is made out. It is civil nature dispute. Applicant has not executed any sale deed after making forged signature. There is no evidence to prosecute the applicant in the present case.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. Prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. 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 482 application of applicant-Satish Chandra Dhar Dubey, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
9. However, if applicant moves discharge application before the concerned court below within three weeks from today, the court below shall decide his application in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of discharge application.
Order Date :- 2.6.2025
Nitin Verma
