Chhatrapal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53054

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32272 of 2024

Applicant :- Chhatrapal Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nand Kishor Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 8.5.2024 relating to case crime no.24/2024, under sections 452, 354B, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kharela, District- Mahoba alongwith cognizance order dated 13.6.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate Charkhari, Mahoba and entire proceedings of criminal case no. 533/2024 (State vs. Rahul Tiwari others), under sections 452, 354B, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station- Kharela, District- Mahoba, arising out case crime no. 24/2024.

¶8

It is alleged in the first information report that informant, who is the eye-witness in the Case Crime No. 108 of 2020, her examination is pending before the Trial Court. It is further stated that accused persons entered in the house of the informant and threatened informant not to depose in aforesaid case crime number, thereafter, assaulted informant and her daughter. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Instant first information report has been lodged with malicious intention in counterblast. Statement of victim/informant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not supporting the prosecution story. Summoning by learned Magistrate is without application of judicial mind and liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that statements of the victim/informant and contents of first information report, prima facie , disclose offence against the applicant and victim has been molested by the applicant, hence, applicant is not entitled for relief as prayed.

¶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 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

¶11

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 & 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.

¶13

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

¶14

However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within two weeks from today and applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922 .

¶15

For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶16

Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Aditya

¶17

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

Chhatrapal Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhatrapal Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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