Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 October, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:176254
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26491 of 2025
Manoj Kumar And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Abhinav Mishra, Neeraj Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the Charge Sheet dated 23.09.2014; summoning/cognizance dated 13.04.2017 as well as entire criminal proceedings of the Case No. 1915 of 2017 (State Vs Manoj kumar and others), arising out of case crime No. 208 of 2024, (NCR No. 51/2014) under sections 308,323,324,504 IPC, police Station Utraon, District- Allahabad, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court No.10, Allahabad.
3. Initially the NCR was registered and after investigation, grievous injury was found and instant F.I.R. has been registered against the applicants. Counsel for the applicants submits that no offence against the applicants 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. The medical examination report, prima facie, discloses no offence under the alleged sections. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet without collecting evidence and learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind summoned the applicants. He further submits that no prosecution could proceed against the applicants, in such circumstances.
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. Moreover, medical examination report discloses offence against the applicants as fracture was found over the skull. The cognizance and summoning order was passed in the year 2017 and after about 7 years, instant petition has been filed.
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. Considering the argument raised by applicant's counsel and perused the record, it is evident that prima facie offence is made out. The Apex Court in its judgment passed in the case of Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642, para 6 and 7 are quoted herein below:-
" 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."
7. 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.
8. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Deepak Verma,J.)
October 6, 2025
Meenu Singh
