Phoolchand Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Phoolchand Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application dismissed; however, if the applicant surrenders within three weeks and applies for bail, the bail application is to be decided expeditiously by the court concerned in accordance with law, and no coercive action is to be taken against him for three weeks or till surrender, whichever is earlier.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 04.12.2012, the cognizance and summoning orders dated 24.04.2013 and 23.09.2014 passed by C.J.M. Maharajganj, and the entire proceeding of Criminal No.1406 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No.1222 of 2012 under section 471 IPC should be quashed in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Court's answer

Many of the grounds taken in the application relate to disputed questions of fact; appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court, and 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.

Ratio / Principle

The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but has to be used sparingly, only in appropriate cases where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where the FIR/charge-sheet and materials relied upon, taken at face value, do not disclose commission of any offence.

Key takeaways

Disputed questions of fact and the defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at the pre-trial stage.ratio¶9
In view of the Apex Court judgments in R.P. Kapur, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case is made out calling for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the proceedings do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.ratio¶10
Protective direction: if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within three weeks and applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law; and for three weeks from the order date or till surrender, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.) dismissed the Section 482 Cr.P.C. application of Phoolchand seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 04.12.2012, the cognizance and summoning orders dated 24.04.2013 and 23.09.2014 passed by the C.J.M., Maharajganj, and the entire proceeding of Criminal No.1406 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No.1222 of 2012 under section 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Maharajganj. The Court held that the grounds raised were largely disputed questions of fact; appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court, whose jurisdiction the High Court cannot assume under Section 482 Cr.P.C. so as to put an end to the trial; the inherent power at the pre-trial stage must be used sparingly, not routinely, and disputed questions of fact and the defence of the accused cannot be considered at that stage. Relying on R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283), the Court found no ground for quashing, the proceedings suffering no illegality or infirmity. As protective directions, the Court ordered that if the applicant surrenders within three weeks and applies for bail, the bail application be decided expeditiously, and that no coercive action be taken against him for three weeks or till surrender, whichever is earlier.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51272

Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36452 of 2024 Applicant :- Phoolchand Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

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

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 04.12.2012 as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 24.04.2013 and 23.09.2014 passed by C.J.M. Maharajganj alongwith entire proceeding of Criminal No.1406 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No.1222 of 2012 under section 471 I.P.C. Police Station-Kotwali, District-Maharajganj, pending before the court of C.J.M Maharajganj.

Counsel for the applicant submits that instant FIR was registered in the year 2012. Charge sheet has been submitted, thereafter, summon has been issued agaisnt the applicant but applicant has no knowledge regarding summoning by trial court. Civil suit is pending between the parties. Allegation against the applicant is that he sold the alleged property.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that court has issued summon against the applicant and applicant is not co-operating in trial proceedings, hence, applicant is not entitled for relief as prayed.

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 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.

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 exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

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

However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within three weeks from today and applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law.

For the period of three 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.

Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Nitin Verma

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad