Allahabad High Court
Anish Kumar @ Rahul 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:68714
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36688 of 2024
Applicant :- Anish Kumar @ Rahul
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Chaudhary,Ela Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash Charge Sheet dated 24.01.2023; Cognizance/summoning order dated 12.07.2023 as well as entire Criminal Case No.25119/2023 (State Vs. Anish Kumar @ Rahul) arising out of Case Crime No.212 of 2022, under Sections 500 and 501 IPC, Police Station: Gaura Badshahpur, District: Jaunpur, pending before Judicial Magistrate-I Court No.17, Jaunpur.
3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the marriage of informant's daughter was fixed with someone and groom's procession had to come on 02.12.2022, then on the same day, the applicant informed the informant's daughter in-laws with regard to love affair with applicant and informant's daughter, thereafter marriage of informant's daughter was cancelled. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. During investigation, no call details have been recovered that applicant has informed the informant's daughter in-laws with regard to love affair. He next submits that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. The F.I.R. allegation is not supported by any evidence and the learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind summoned the applicant. He further submits that no prosecution could proceed against the applicant, in such circumstances.
4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and submitted that submission raised by counsel for the applicant is based on factual dispute. The trial court has to examine the same. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no power to examine the factual dispute of the matter.
5. 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. The learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicant in the aforesaid case. 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.
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.
7. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
8. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned Court below within three weeks from today and applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the courts below 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.
9. For the period of three weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him.
Order Date :- 1.5.2025
Meenu Singh
