Sharda and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18530 of 2024

Applicant :- Sharda And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.K. Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 2803-2024 passed by the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna in S.T. No. 1671/2023 (State versus Sharda Yadav and others), in context with the Case Crime No. 226 of 2020, under section 308, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. P.S. Kasya, District Kushinagar, by which the discharge application dated 25-01-2024 preferred by the applicants under section 227 of the Criminal Procedure of Code has been dismissed.

¶7

Counsel for the applicants submits that vide order dated 28.03.2024, learned Trial Court has rejected the discharge application of the applicants. He next submitted that applicants have specifically raised point that injury report filed by the prosecution side is fabricated & manipulated but Trail Court without assigning any reason rejected the discharge application of the applicants.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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:-

¶11

" 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.

¶12

7. Such an exercise, in our considered view, is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C."

¶13

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.

¶14

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Aditya

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sharda and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharda and 3 Others 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

Anil vs State of Up and Another

Rambilas Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Gopal Alias Gopal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunil Bansal and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Nawab and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Parshuram and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another