Nadeem Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62662

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26662 of 2024

Applicant :- Nadeem Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Madhu Ranjan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 176 of 2023 dated 25.07.2023, cognizance order dated 27.07.2023 as well as the entire proceeding of Case No. 10206 of 2023 (State Vs. Sri Krishna Sharma and others), Under Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 633 of 2022, Police Station- Kotwali, District Pilibhit, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit.

¶8

The FIR was registered against ten named educational institutions alleging therein that the principals and managers of the said institutions have embezzled the minorities scholarship provided by the Government of India.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant is not named in the first information report and applicant is having no concern with Chameli Devi Dal Chandra Gayatri Balvidya Mandir, Sapaha, Tehsil Puranpur, District- Pilibhit. After registration of the present first information report, I.O. has conducted investigation and recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Krishna Pal Singh, in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has stated that National Scholarship Protal used to be fulfilled by the institutions after obtaining the OTP from the Nodal Officer, whose Aadhar Card linked with the NSP and further stated that after fulfilling the requisite condition, the minority students will entitle for the benefit of the scholarship. The inquiry was conducted by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pilibhit and Chief Development Officer, Pilibhit, as such, principles and managers of the alleged institutions, have been implicated in the present case. One Mohd. Imran S/o Mohd.

¶10

Israr, who runs a computer shop in the name of Barkati Computer Jan Sewa Kendra, after taking his affidavit, has not been implicated in the present case as accused but considered as witness of the present case. Applicant worked in the said computer shop of Mohd. Imran and falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant is having no concern with the scholarship of minority students. The head of institution is responsible for any discrepancy found in giving scholarship to minority students and I.O. without collecting any evidence has implicated applicant in the present case showing him as Nodal Officer of the Chameli Devi Dal Chandra Gayatri Bal Vidya Mandir Sapaha, Tehsil Puranpur, District- Pilibhit and into the CD No. 27 dated 13.02.2023. The I.O. in a very cyclostyle and causal manner conducted the investigation and submitted charge-sheet against the applicant. Learned Magistrate without applying his judicial mind issued summons against the applicant.

¶11

Per contra , learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that during investigation, I.O. has collected evidence against the applicant and has found that applicant was the Nodal Officer and applicant's mobile number was linked with the portal and used to receive OTP. Moreover, submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant are disputed questions of facts, which cannot be considered and examined by this Court at this Stage in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I.O. has collected sufficient evidence against the applicant to prosecution him in the present case.

¶12

Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From the record, prima facie , offence is made out against the applicant. Further, 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

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Aditya

¶17

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

Nadeem Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeem Khan 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