Dismissed¶14

Gopal Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2025A482/30758/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing application dismissed — charge sheet under Section 60 of the Excise Act — illicit liquor recovery — pleas of false implication, planted recovery, delay in FIR and mechanical cognizance held to be disputed factual issues for trial — inherent powers to be exercised sparingly — no glaring legal infirmity or abuse of process shown — Allahabad High Court, Vinod Diwakar, J. — Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:30242 — APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 30758 of 2024 — decided 3.3.2025.

What did the court decide?

The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent the abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. ¶12

Gopal Upadhyay vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 26.02.2023, the cognizance order dated 22.03.2024, and the entire proceedings of Case No. 20487 of 2024 (State v. Gopal Upadhyay), arising out of Case Crime No. 0026 of 2023 under Section 60 of the Excise Act, ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent the abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

No glaring legal infirmity or abuse of the process has been demonstrated to justify interference at this stage; the issues raised pertain to disputed facts and evidentiary matters addressable during the trial.

¶12

Key takeaways

The contentions raised by the applicant, including alleged false implication, delay in lodging the FIR, and mechanical cognizance, are factual issues that require adjudication during the trial.ratio¶11
This Court does not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the ongoing proceedings; the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vinod Diwakar, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:30242) dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Gopal Upadhyay seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 26.02.2023, the cognizance order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, and the entire proceedings of Case No. 20487 of 2024 (State v. Gopal Upadhyay), arising out of Case Crime No. 0026 of 2023 under Section 60 of the Excise Act, Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi. The Court held that the applicant's contentions of false implication, planted recovery, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and mechanical cognizance were disputed factual issues requiring adjudication at trial; no glaring legal infirmity or abuse of process was demonstrated; and the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and with caution. The application was dismissed as devoid of merit.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30242

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30758 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Gopal Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hanuman Kinkar,Lalit Ojha,Ramkinkar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 26.02.2023 and the cognizance order dated 22.03.2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 20487 of 2024, titled State v. Gopal Upadhyay , arising out of Case Crime No. 0026 of 2023, under Section 60 of the Excise Act, Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi, pending before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant, an unemployed youth, has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police authorities. It is submitted that the applicant was called from his house in the middle of the night by the police, and his signature was obtained on a blank piece of paper, which was later used to fabricate the present case. It is further argued that the alleged recovery is false and planted, and the charge sheet has been filed on the basis of a concocted and fabricated story without conducting the proper investigation of the case.

¶9

Learned counsel further submits that the cognizance taken on the charge sheet by the learned Magistrate was done in a mechanical manner, without proper application of mind, thereby rendering the entire proceedings liable to be quashed. Additionally, it is pointed out that the place of the alleged incident is merely one kilometer away from the police station, yet there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, raising doubts about the prosecution version.

¶10

In contrast, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the application and submits that the applicant was apprehended on the spot while carrying 10 liters of illicit liquor. It is asserted that the arrest and recovery were duly recorded, and there is no illegality or irregularity in the investigation or filing of the charge sheet.

¶11

Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and thorough perusal of the entire record, it is evident that the contentions raised by the applicant, including the alleged false implication, delay in lodging the FIR, and mechanical cognizance, are factual issues that require adjudication during the trial.

¶12

The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent the abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. In the present case, no glaring legal infirmity or abuse of the process has been demonstrated to justify interference at this stage. The issues raised by the applicant pertain to disputed facts and evidentiary matters, which can be appropriately addressed during the course of the trial.

¶13

In view of the above discussions and settled legal principles, this Court does not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the

¶14

ongoing proceedings. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Anil K. Sharma

¶16

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gopal Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Upadhyay 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shweta Kumari and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shivani Kumari and Another vs the State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mahendra Singh Cheema and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Sarika Jha and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Uzra Tabassum and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Chakra Pani Bhatt and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others