Piyush Pandey Vs State of Up ANOther

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56492

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17672 of 2024

Applicant :- Piyush Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of Up Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Srivastava,Vivek Kumar Mishra 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 charge-sheet dated 13.06.2022, cognizance/summoning dated 24.06.2022 as well as to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.166 of 2022 (State vs.Mukesh and another) arising out of Case Crime No.166 of 2022, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Noida Sector-20, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶8

Allegation in the FIR is that informant contacted named accused person, who runs Uro Asiyan Immigration Company and who deals and manage visa and tickets for the person interested to go abroad. Informant has made allegation against the applicant that he has given money but the applicant provided false tickets and visa. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. On perusal of contents of FIR and statement of the witnesses, main allegation is made out against accused person. Only allegation against the applicant is that he was present with co-accused Mukesh Kumar. Applicant has not received any money and he has been falsely implicated in this case. No evidence has collected by the Investigating Officer to prosecute the applicant in the present case.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that prima-facie offence is made out against the applicant, hence, applicant is not entitled for relief as prayed. Submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant is disputed question of facts and cannot be decided at this stage. Investigating Officer has collected material evidence against the applicant and trial court after considering the evidence summoned the accused person.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

The present 482 application of applicant- Piyush Pandey , is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.4.2025 SKD

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Piyush Pandey v. State of Up ANOther

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piyush Pandey v. State of Up 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