Jamal Akhtar vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 296 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Jamal Akhtar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 May, 2025

Author: Deepak Verma

Bench: Deepak Verma

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68626
 
Court No. - 84
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37520 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Jamal Akhtar
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, 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 Charge Sheet dated 12.05.2018 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 62 of 2018 (State Versus Jamal Akhtar) arising out of Case Crime No. 197 of 2017, Under Sections 307, 324, 120-B of I.P.C., Police Station Saraimeer, District Azamgarh, pending in the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is son-in-law of opposite party no.2 and the FIR has been lodged due to matrimonial dispute between applicant and informant's daughter. Instant FIR has been lodged only to harass the applicant. As per doctor's opinion, injury received by injured, cannot be said to be fire arm injury. Informant's daughter has lodged various reports against the applicant, when she could not success, then the present FIR has been lodged against the applicant.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that it appears from the record that a part of cartridge has been found, hence, it is not a case of false implication. On 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 applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No interference is warranted.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. The present 482 application of applicant-Jamal Akhtar, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

8. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within two weeks from today and applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 1.5.2025

Nitin Verma