Virendra Singh and 3 Others vs State of Upand Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70855

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37095 of 2024

Applicant :- Virendra Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of Upand Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Salim Khan,Ved Ratan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned charge-sheet cognizance order dated 06.07.2024 as well as to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.973 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.11 of 2024 (State vs. Virendra Singh and others), under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Gonda, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Aligarh.

¶8

It is alleged in the FIR that informant's father who was missing since 2006 and thereafter he has not traced out and in the year 2023, applicants got registered sale deed in their favour impostering someone as father of the informant. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Civil suit is pending between the parties. Informant is relative of the applicants and instant FIR lodged with malice intention only to harass the applicants. On perusal of FIR and other material collected during investigation no offence is is made out under alleged section.

¶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, prima-facie offence is made out against the applicants.

¶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

¶11

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.

¶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. Prima-facie offence is made out against the applicant. Submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant is disputed question of facts which cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. No interference is warranted. The present 482 application of applicants- Virdenra Singh, Mithlesh Devi, Shiv Kumar & Jagvir Singh is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.5.2025 SKD

¶15

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

Virendra Singh and 3 Others v. State of Upand Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Singh and 3 Others v. State of Upand 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

Similar cases

Brij Bhushan Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhedi Lal Sahu and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Kumar Dubey vs State of U.P.

Javed and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another

Avnish Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Asha and Another vs State of U.P. and Another