Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 16.10.2023, the cognizance and summoning order dated 14.02.2024 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 487 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 457 of 2022, in which the applicant figures as a witness of the sale deed, should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

Court's answer

From the perusal of the material on record and the facts at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.

Ratio / Principle

The learned Magistrate rightly summoned the applicants in the aforesaid case.

Key takeaways

All submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.ratio¶¶11
In light of the cited Apex Court judgments, no ground for quashing the proceedings is made out calling for interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.ratio¶¶12
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Section 482 Cr.P.C. application (APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28275 of 2024, Allahabad High Court, Deepak Verma, J.; Order Date 6.5.2025) by Sanjay Kumar Singh — named in F.I.R. Case Crime No. 457 of 2022 (Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Bairiya, District Ballia) as witness of a sale deed allegedly executed by named accused impersonating the informant's mother — seeking quashing of charge sheet dated 16.10.2023, cognizance and summoning order dated 14.02.2024 and entire proceedings of Case No. 487 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Sumitra Devi and others) pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia: DISMISSED. Held: from the material on record it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants; the learned Magistrate rightly summoned them; all submissions at the bar are disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; no ground for interference under inherent power, in light of Apex Court judgments — R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866); Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr. (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642); State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426); State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192); Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq (Para-10) (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283).

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72303

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28275 of 2024

Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the quash the charge sheet dated 16.10.2023; cognizance and summoning order dated 14.02.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 487 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Sumitra Devi and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 457 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. Police Station Bairiya, District Ballia pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia.

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that informant's mother property has been sold by the named accused persons impersonating herself as mother of informant. The allegation against the applicant is that he is witness of the sale deed. Counsel for the applicants submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. No offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. The F.I.R. allegation is not supported by any evidence. The Investigating Officer has exonerated the name of unknown lady. He next submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant, as such, he was witnesses of the sale deed. The learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind summoned the applicant. He further submits that no prosecution could proceed against the applicants, in such circumstances.

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and submitted that from the evidence collected during investigation, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is witness of the sale deed. It is next submitted that submission raised by counsel for the applicant is based on factual dispute. The trial court has to examine the same. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no power to

examine the factual dispute of the matter.

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. The learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicants in the aforesaid case. 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.

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.

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

Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Meenu Singh

Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad