Dismissed¶17

Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 May 2025A482/3582/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC single judge (Raj Beer Singh, J.), 7.5.2025, Appn U/S 482 No. 3582/2025, neutral citation 2025:AHC:73370: S.482 CrPC quashing application re Complaint Case 662/2005 (Ss.504, 506 IPC, Gorakhpur) dismissed; Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 605 guidelines relied on; prima facie case from S.200 and S.202 CrPC statements; fact-finding/evidence appraisal reserved to trial court; application filed ~2.5 years late — gross delay and laches noted.

What did the court decide?

Jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, though proceedings may be quashed where allegations taken at their face value do not prima facie constitute any offence, following the guidelines in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 605) ¶12

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 662 of 2005 (under Sections 504, 506 IPC) pending before the Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M.-1st, Gorakhpur should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

¶12

Ratio / Principle

No fixed period of limitation is prescribed for filing a Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS application, but it must be filed within a reasonable period; the instant application, filed with a delay of about two and a half years, suffers from the vice of gross delay and latches

¶13

Key takeaways

In view of the material on record (complainant's Section 200 statement supported by witnesses' Section 202 statements), it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicantratio¶14
Adjudication of questions of fact and appreciation of evidence, including examining reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and is for the trial courtratio¶15
No case for quashing of the impugned proceedings was made out; the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Raj Beer Singh, J.) — Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:73370; Application U/S 482 No. 3582 of 2025 (decided 7.5.2025). Application by Sanjay Kumar Pandey under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 662 of 2005 (Krishna Chandra Tiwari v. Sanjay Kumar Pandey), under Sections 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Cantt, Gorakhpur, pending before the Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M.-1st, Gorakhpur, DISMISSED. Relying on State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605, the judge reiterated that quashing jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The complainant's statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. — that the applicant, aggrieved by a complaint to Railway Authorities, stopped his motorcycle with three-four unknown persons on 30.09.2005 and abused and threatened to kill him — was corroborated by witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C.; hence a prima facie case existed, and adjudication of questions of fact and appreciation of evidence lies outside Section 482 jurisdiction. The court further observed that although no fixed limitation applies to a Section 482/528 BNSS application, it must be filed within a reasonable period, and this application (applicant before the trial court since 2022) suffered from gross delay and latches.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73370

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3582 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Munna Tiwari,Priti Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, of Complaint Case No. 662 of 2005 (Krishna Chandra Tiwari Vs. Sanjay Kumar Pandey), under Sections - 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Cantt, District - Gorakhpur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M.-1st, Gorakhpur.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 making false and baseless allegations. Applicant is posted as Booking Clerk in the Railway Department and that the allegations levelled against applicant are wholly false. The impugned complaint was lodged with malafide intention due to personal enmity. Learned counsel has referred statement of complainant and of witnesses and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of the allegations made by the complainant and the statements of witnesses, a prima facie case is made out against the applicant.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶11

The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-

¶12

settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal , Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

¶13

In the instant matter, it may be stated that applicant is appearing before the Trial Court since the year 2022 and this application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with delay of about two and a half years. It is correct that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed for filing of an application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS but nevertheless such an application has to be filed within a reasonable period. The instant application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. suffers from vice of gross delay and latches.

¶14

The perusal of record shows that in his statement under Section - 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has made allegations that he is working as a contractor and he has made a complaint to the Railway Authorities against applicant and he has made his statement in the complaint. Due to that reason, on 30.09.2005 the applicant, along with three-four unknown persons, stopped the motorcycle of complainant and abused and threatened to kill him. The version of complainant is supported by the statement of witnesses examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C. The case is pending before the Trial Court at the stage of evidence. In view of material on record, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately

¶15

gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section - 482 Cr.P.C.

¶16

After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.

¶17

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 7.5.2025 S Rawat

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Pandey 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

Ramnaresh and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

P.T.C. Techno Private Limited vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Guddi Alias Hasibun vs State of U.P. and Another

Manisha and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Sayra Bi vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajkumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another