Allahabad High Court
Dheeraj Gangwar And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:205469
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13213 of 2018
Dheeraj Gangwar And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar, Utkarsha Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Karunesh Narayan Tripathi, Ram Charan Lal, Sanjay Kumar Shukla
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, 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 charegsheet dated 04.02.2018 & cognizance order dated 24.02.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.2113 of 2018, (State Vs. Dheeraj Gangwar & Others) arising out of Case Crime No.112 of 2017, under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 of IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bareilly.
3. As per the record, the present application 482 Cr.P.C. has already been disposed of against the applicant nos.1, 2 & 3 vide order dated 01.09.2021
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicant nos.4 & 5 that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicants have not committed any offence. He further submits that there is general allegations made in the FIR against the applicants no.4 & 5. It is further submitted that applicant nos.4 & 5 are sister-in-law and brother-in-law of opposite party no.2 and they have no concern with the day-to-day affairs of opposite party no.2. There is no specific allegation against the applicants. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. On the strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the paragraph nos.18 & 22 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 2022 SC 820.
5. Learned AGA as well as counsel for opposite party no.2 has opposed the prayer with the submission that there is specific allegation has been made in statement of opposite party no.2 recorded during the course of investigation against the applicants. There is no variation in the version of FIR or the statement of opposite party no.2. The chargesheet has been filed after proper investigation. It is further submitted that the cognizance has already been taken in the matter. It is also submitted that there is material evidence on record to proceed with the trial. It is further submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and no interference is called for.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire evidence.
7. A perusal of the first information report and the statement of the opposite party no.2 would demonstrate that there are specific and separate allegations against the applicants. After investigation chargesheet has also been filed against the present applicants and cognizance have been taken by the learned Magistrate.
8. As is evident, 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. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, 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. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the present applicants are not made out. Hence, prayer made in the application is refused.
9. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed leaving it open for the applicants to apply before the court concerned for bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
10. It is made clear that the applicants may move discharge application before the court concerned at appropriate stage in accordance with law, if so advise.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
November 18, 2025
S.K.
