Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Noor And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 October, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:190410
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42349 of 2025
Mohd. Noor And 5 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Rajesh Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 74
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Sand, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of S.T. No.200 of 2022 (State versus Mohd.Tuglak), arising out of Case Crime No.157 of 2021, under sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452 & 354 I.P.C. & Sections 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Industrial Area, District Prayagraj pending in the court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Prayagraj.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that instant proceeding initiated under SC/ST Act is abuse of the process of the Court as FIR was registered against the applicants as Case Crime No.157 of 2021 under sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452 & 354 I.P.C. & Sections 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act. Thereafter, another complaint was moved by different person in regard to harassment against the applicants. Investigating Officer has clubbed both the matter and started investigation. Earlier FIR was not registered under SC/ST Act but on account of second complaint, SC/ST Act has been initiated against the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entire proceeding against the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court. Cognizance and summoning by learned magistrate is without application of judicial mind.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance over the Apex Court judgment in Shashikant Sharma and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1599 and has placed reliance upon Para-18 of the said judgment. The same is being quoted below:-
"Resultantly, the impugned orders to the extent of charge framed against the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and the order rejecting the appeal cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the trial of the accused for the remaining offences shall continue. The accused appellants already stand released on bonds as indicated in the Order dated 19th May, 2023 passed by this Court. The bonds so submitted shall enure till conclusion of the trial. The non-bailable warrants issued against the accused by the trial Court are hereby quashed. As a consequence of quashing of the charge for the offence punishable under the SC/ST Act, and since the remaining charges are for the offences punishable under IPC, the trial of the case shall stand transferred from the Special Court to the Court of Sessions having jurisdiction to try the case."
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the argument raised by applicants' counsel and submits that one co-accused challenged the order by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.3525 of 2023 (Mohammad Tuglak vs. State of U.P). & another) and this Court by order dated 30.05.2023 after hearing at length refused to entertain the criminal appeal of the co-accused. In the present case the facts and disputes involved are the same as in criminal appeal.
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. Considering the argument raised by applicants' 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."
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. From the record, it is apparent that co-accused preferred the criminal appeal against cognizance and summoning order dated 07.04.2022 and this Court after hearing the parties did not find any material to quash the proceeding and refused to grant protection and disposed of the criminal appeal of the co-accused. Moreover, the case is listed for framing of charge. Co-ordinate Bench while deciding the appeal of the co-accused by order dated 30.05.2023 has observed that prima-facie both the incident appears to be the part of same transaction and thus in the considered opinion of this Court no illegality has been committed by the Investigating Officer in also investigating the contents of the application given by one Usha Devi. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicants in the aforesaid case is not applicable in the present case. This Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the applicants as coordinate Bench has already considered and decided the criminal appeal. No interference is warranted. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Deepak Verma,J.)
October 30, 2025
SKD
