Prashant Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74445

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35629 of 2024

Applicant :- Prashant Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Govind Narayan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 23.08.2021, cognizance order dated 05.10.2021 as well as to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.24971 of 2021 (State vs. Prashant Tiwari) arising out of Case Crime No.101 of 2021, under section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Dhanapur, District Chandauli, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that the applicant and informant are family members. Instant FIR lodged with malice intention. Applicant has paid all the amount through bank transaction. He has paid Rs.1,36,000/- to the informant. The allegation alleged in the FIR is false and baseless, not supported by any evidence.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicants' counsel and submits that submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant is disputed question of facts, which cannot be decided at this stage. From perusal of FIR and other material evidence, offence under section 406 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant.

¶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 judgments that The impugned criminal

¶11

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

Considered the arguments raised by both the parties. From perusal of FIR, it is apparent that the applicant has received amount Rs.1,50,000/- Prima-facie, offence under section 406 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant and submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant that he has deposited amount of Rs.1,36,000/- in the account of informant cannot be examined at this stage in view of the Apex Court judgment. No interference is warranted. The present 482 application of applicant- Prasahant Tiwari, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.5.2025 SKD

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prashant Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Tiwari 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases