Allahabad High Court
Mohd Asif vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 May, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93603
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43559 of 2024
Applicant :- Mohd Asif
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan,S. I. Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 17.08.2024; cognizance/summoning order dated 27.08.2024 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No.1428 of 2024 (State Versus Ranvijay Singh and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.0076 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 386, 307, 506 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station Kareli, District Prayagraj, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, District-Prayagraj.
3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that named accused persons on 10.04.2024 came near Madarsa Mor and threatened the informant to sold his property to the accused persons, thereafter the accused persons badly beaten the informant and shot fire upon him but that did not hit the informant.
4. Counsel for the applicant 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 applicant is an advocate. The F.I.R. allegation is not supported by any evidence and the I.O. has not collected any evidence to prosecute the applicant in the present case. There is no evidence that applicant pressurized the informant. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet without collecting evidence and learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind summoned the applicant. He further submits that no prosecution could proceed against the applicant, in such circumstances.
5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and submitted that applicant having criminal history of five cases which is explained in Para-30 of the application and the I.O. has collected material evidence against the applicant. It is next 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.
6. The Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107 has held in para No.14 as follows:-
"14. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case."
7. The Apex Court in Priti Saraf and another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another reported in AIR 2021 SC 1531 has held that:
"To exercise powers under Section 482, complaint in its entirety have to be examined on basis of allegation made in complaint/FIR/Charge sheet. High Court at that stage not under an obligation to go into matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on face of complaint/FIR/charge sheet to be taken into consideration without any critical examination of same. Offence ought to appear ex facie on complaint/FIR/charge sheet and other documentary evidence, on record. It is thus settled that exercise of inherent power of High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinize complaint/FIR/charge sheet in deciding whether case is rarest of rare case, to scuttle prosecution at its inception. Whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing such proceedings."
8. The Apex Court in the case of Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642 has held thus:
"4. The least we can say is that the High Court in the impugned order, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has almost conducted a mini trial and quashed the proceedings.
5. Learned Single Judge of the High Court has elaborately discussed the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
6. Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at the stage of such trial.
7. Such an exercise, in our considered view, is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. The scope of interference, while quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that too for a serious offence like Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is very limited. The Court would exercise its power to quash the proceedings only if it finds that taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all.
9. At the stage of deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the High Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in the chargesheet. The High Court by the impugned order has done exactly the same."
9. 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. On perusal of F.I.R. and statement of the witnesses available on record, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is named in the F.I.R. and role is also assigned to him for terrorizing and assaulting the informant. The applicant has five cases of criminal history. 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.
10. 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.
11. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2025
Meenu Singh
