Allahabad High Court
Ram Bahori Kushwaha vs State Of U.P And Another on 21 November, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:208638
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3857 of 2021
Ram Bahori Kushwaha
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Amar Bahadur Maurya, Sushil Kumar Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Ram Singh, G.A.
Court No. - 74
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Ram Singh, counsel for the opposite party no. 2; learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge D.A.A. Banda as well as entire proceedings of Special Complaint Case No.86 of 2019 (Seva Das Vs. Ram Bahori Kushwaha and another) under Sections 394, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kalinjar, District Banda, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge DAA Banda.
3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the complainant lodged complaint against the applicants alleging that on 23.11.2018 at 5 pm, when the complainant was engaged in business at Masuri crossing by opening tea stall and break fast, then the accused applicant, Ram Bahori Pradhan and Ranvijay Singh BDC member of village, reached at the shop of opposite party no.2 and started to hurl abuse to complainant and snatched Rs.2000/- from the counter of the shop. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was registered as complaint case and a report was called for from the concerned police station. Thereafter, statement under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. has been recorded and the trial court vide order dated 07.02.2020, summoned the applicants under Sections 394, 504, 506 I.P.C.
4. Counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The complainant encroached and installed tea stall on public path. The S.D.M. issued notice to the complainant/opposite party no. 2 to clear the encroachment so that fair, which was to be held in village, be organized without any hindrance. The applicant no. 1 being Pradhan of the village and applicant no. 2 member of the Gram Panchayat of the village, to clear fair place, issued notice to shop keepers and encroachers. Complainant/opposite party no. 2 was annoyed on this act of the applicants and in retaliation, instant complaint has been lodged. Counsel for the applicants next submits that complainant has made statement in complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. that he was assaulted by the applicants but there is no injury case and complaint is not supported by any medical examination report. The whole proceedings against the applicants by learned trial court is abuse of the process of the court. The allegation alleged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants are absolutely false, incorrect and lodged with malafide intention.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the arguments raised by applicants' counsel and submits that on perusal of complaint as well as statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., prima facie, disclose offence under the alleged sections and the trial court has not found any material evidence under Section 323 I.P.C., hence the applicants have not been summoned under the aforesaid section. It is next submitted that the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant 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.
6. 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.
7. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the parties. On perusal of allegation made in the complaint and the statement of the complainant recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., with regard to taking money from the shop of counter forcefully and abuse made by the applicants, prima facie discloses offence against the applicants in the aforesaid sections. The argument raised by counsel for the applicants are totally based upon facts related arguments and reliance placed over the evidence, is not part of the evidence collected by the I.O. At this stage, that cannot be considered or examined. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. The impugned order is just and proper.
8. 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.
9. The present 482 application is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
10. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within three weeks from today and applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, 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. 11. 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
(Deepak Verma,J.)
November 21, 2025
Meenu Singh
