Nasim and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55897

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17642 of 2024

Applicant :- Nasim And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prince Kumar Srivastava,Satyendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceeding of case crime no. 125 of 2019 related to charge sheet dated 26.08.2019 and cognizance order dated 13.09.2019 arising out of criminal case no. 11922 of 2019 (State Vs. Nasim and others) under section 419, 420, 406, 506, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Tiwaripur, District Gorakhpur as well as summoning order dated 13.09.2019, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gorakhpur.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that applicants have been summoned U/s 419, 420, 406, 506, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., in which it has been held that both the proceedings cannot run simultaneously. Applicant have no concern with the alleged incident and allegation alleged against the applicants is without support of any evidence. Applicants are not involved in running the company. There is no evidence against the applicants to prosecute in the present case.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicants' counsel and submits that the judgment of Hon'ble The Apex Court cited herein above, is not applicable in present case. The Apex Court, while dealing the complaint case, has passed an order that learned Magistrate should meticulously examine the complaint and statement recorded U/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. before summoning the accused person and in present FIR, applicants have been summoned on police report and Investigating Officer collected sufficient evidence against the applicants. The argument raised by applicants' counsel is factual dispute which cannot be

¶10

examined and ascertained at this stage. Applicants have chances to raise objection while framing the charges. As such, applicants are not entitled for relief as prayed.

¶11

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.

¶12

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 and another, 2023 Live Law (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.

¶13

The present 482 application of applicants, Nasim and Talha, are hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

¶14

Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Nitin Verma

¶15

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nasim and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasim and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases