Allahabad High Court
Sujeet Uttam And Another 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:68728
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37866 of 2024
Applicant :- Sujeet Uttam And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Awadh Bihari Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the cognizance order/summoning order dated 09.08.2024, the charge sheet No. 198/2024 dated 24.07.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 70693 of 2024 (State Vs. Sujeet Uttam and others) arising out of Case Crime No.276 of 2023, under Sections 419, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Hanumant Vihar, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)-4, Kanpur Nagar.
3. Allegation in the FIR is that one co-accused, namely, Mohit Kumar sold the property to informant by imposter himself as original holder. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegation alleged in the FIR is false and baseless. Applicants are marginal witnesses of the sale-deed and having no concern with the alleged incident. I.O. has collected any material evidence to prosecute the applicants in the present case. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance over the judgments passed by Hon'ble The Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248, in specific paragraph nos. 25, 28, 29, 30 and 31.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the arguments raised by applicants' counsel and submits that arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants are factual aspects of the matter, which cannot be considered at this stage by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover, applicants are witnesses of sale-deed and it cannot be presumed that he was not aware with the person executing sale-deed by imposter himself, as such, prima facie offence is made out against the applicants.
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 & 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.
7. Considering the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants are disputed questions of facts. During arguments, counsel submitted that applicants are marginal witnesses of the sale-deed having no concern with fraudulent act, which cannot be accepted as that witnesses who are appearing on behalf of the person and witnessing the person, cannot be said that they were ignorant. Summoning by Trial Court is not required any interference. Learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicants under Sections 420, 406 IPC along with allied section. Applicants have remedy to raise objections that both proceedings cannot simultaneously in pursuance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment, before the Trial Court at the stage of framing of charge or way of a discharge application. No interference is warranted.
8. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.5.2025/Aditya
