Dismissed¶18

Divya Yog Maya Saraswati and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2025A482/32823/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing refused; charge sheet 07.07.2022; cognizance order 21.07.2022; Case No.34695 of 2022; Case Crime No.883 of 2021; Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 427 IPC; P.S. Kaushambi, District Ghaziabad; disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under Section 482; appreciation of evidence for trial court; discharge application within two weeks; Mohd. Allauddin Khan (2019) 6 SCC 107; Priti Saraf AIR 2021 SC 1531; R.P. Kapur AIR 1960 SC 866; Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426; P.P. Sharma 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192; Zandu Pharmaceutical 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283; Allahabad High Court; 2025:AHC:53169; Deepak Verma, J.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; liberty granted to file a discharge application within two weeks, to be decided by the trial court in accordance with law. ¶18

Divya Yog Maya Saraswati and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; liberty granted to file a discharge application within two weeks, to be decided by the trial court in accordance with law.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 07.07.2022, cognizance order dated 21.07.2022 and the entire proceedings of Case No.34695 of 2022 (Case Crime No.883 of 2021) under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 and 427 I.P.C. are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

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

¶15

Ratio / Principle

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.; appreciation of evidence is a matter for the trial court.

¶15

Key takeaways

In view of the cited Apex Court judgments (R.P. Kapur; Bhajan Lal; P.P. Sharma; Zandu Pharmaceutical), 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. (sentence continues into para 17).ratio¶16
Applicants' counsel is permitted to raise the grievance by filing a discharge application within two weeks, which the trial court shall decide in accordance with law.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.) dismisses an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 07.07.2022, cognizance order dated 21.07.2022 and entire proceedings of Case No.34695 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.883 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 and 427 I.P.C., P.S. Kaushambi, District Ghaziabad. Relying on Mohd. Allauddin Khan (2019) 6 SCC 107 and Priti Saraf (AIR 2021 SC 1531), and invoking R.P. Kapur, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., the Court holds that at this stage it cannot be said no offence is made out, and that submissions resting on disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Applicants are permitted to file a discharge application within two weeks, to be decided by the trial court in accordance with law.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53169

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32823 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Divya Yog Maya Saraswati And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vibhendu Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 07.07.2022; cognizance order dated 21.07.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.34695 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.883 of 2021 (State Vs. Divya Yog Maya Saraswati and others) under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 and 427 I.P.C., P.S. Kaushambi, District Ghaziabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. During investigation nothing has been recovered against the applicants but I.O. has submitted chargesheet. There is no evidence against the applicants. The A.C.J.M. concerned without applying judicial mind summoned the applicants. Summoning order is liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants. Prima face offence is made out against the applicants. Evidence collected by I.O. cannot be examined at this stage. He further submitted that submission of the applicants 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.

¶10

The Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107 has held in para No.14 as follows:-

¶11

"14. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially

¶12

an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case."

¶13

The Apex Court in Priti Saraf and another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another reported in AIR 2021 SC 1531 has held that:

¶14

"To exercise powers under Section 482, complaint in its entirety have to be examined on basis of allegation made in complaint/FIR/Charge sheet. High Court at that stage not under an obligation to go into matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on face of complaint/FIR/charge sheet to be taken into consideration without any critical examination of same. Offence ought to appear ex facie on complaint/FIR/charge sheet and other documentary evidence, on record. It is thus settled that exercise of inherent power of High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinize complaint/FIR/charge sheet in deciding whether case is rarest of rare case, to scuttle prosecution at its inception. Whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing such proceedings."

¶15

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 applicant. 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.

¶16

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, 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

¶17

exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶18

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

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that he may be permitted to raise his grievance by filing discharge application. Learned counsel for the applicant shall file discharge application within two weeks from today, discharge application shall be decided by trial court in accordance with law.

¶20

Order Date :- 10.4.2025 Asha

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Divya Yog Maya Saraswati and 2 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divya Yog Maya Saraswati and 2 Others v. State of Up 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