Dismissed

Sandeep Nagar and 3 Other v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 May 2025A482/26904/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that disputed questions of fact and allegations of malafide implication preclude interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The application to quash criminal proceedings was dismissed as no legal bar or infirmity appeared on the face of the records.

What did the court decide?

The 482 Cr.P.C. application filed to quash the criminal proceeding and cognizance order is dismissed.

Sandeep Nagar and 3 Other vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77637

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26904 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep Nagar And 3 Other Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceeding including charge-sheet dated 21.12.2022 as well as cognizance order dated 15.02.2023 in Case No.263114/2022 arising out of Case Crime No.19/2020, U/s 386, 323, 506 1.P.C. of Police Station Dankaur, District-Gautam Budh Nagar, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶8

Counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention. It is alleged in the FIR that applicants demanded Rs.10 lacs as extortion money to do work on contract work place to put soil on road. All allegation alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated. Cognizance/summoning by learned Magistrate, is without application of judicial mind.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicants' counsel and submits that on perusal of FIR, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicants. Prosecution story is supported by medical examination report. I.O. has collected sufficient material evidence to prosecute the applicants in the present case. Learned Magistrate has rightly issued summon against the applicants. He further submitted that it is apparent from record that trial proceedings has posted for framing of charge. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No interference is warranted.

¶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

¶11

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, Sandeep Nagar, Punit Nagar @ Ashu @ Aashish Nagar, Gaurav Bhati and Manish Nagar @ Manni, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

¶14

Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Nitin Verma

¶15

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

Sandeep Nagar and 3 Other v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Nagar and 3 Other v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sarvesh Yadav vs State of Up and Another

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

Nisha Kumari Goud vs State of Up and Another

Nalneesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Durg Vijay Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shareef Ahmad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another