Dismissed¶13

Sarvesh Yadav v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC12 May 2025A482/38273/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

482 Cr.P.C. quashing dismissed; summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. upheld; disputed questions of fact not examinable under Section 482; sections 323, 325, 308, 506 IPC; Sessions Trial No. 633 of 2022; P.S. Saurikh, District Kannauj; applicant Sarvesh Yadav not named in F.I.R.; reliance on R.P. Kapur, Manik B., Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma, Zandu Pharmaceutical; single judge Deepak Verma, J.; order date 1.7.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:101070.

What did the court decide?

At this stage, on the material on record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant; the learned Magistrate rightly summoned the applicant and the order of the court below is just and proper. ¶11

Sarvesh Yadav vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Room No.2, Kannauj, summoning the applicant to face trial under sections 323, 325, 308, 506 IPC, should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

¶11

Ratio / Principle

All submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶11

Key takeaways

In light of the Apex Court decisions relied upon (R.P. Kapur, Manik B., Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma, Zandu Pharmaceutical), no ground for quashing the proceedings is made out calling for interference in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.) dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Sarvesh Yadav seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Room No.2, Kannauj, whereby the applicant was summoned on a prosecution application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial under sections 323, 325, 308, 506 IPC in Sessions Trial No. 633 of 2022 (State Vs. J.P. Jaipal and others), Police station Saurikh, District Kannauj. The applicant had argued that he was not named in the F.I.R. or in the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, that P.Ws. 1 to 3 were not eye-witnesses, and that contradictions existed in their statements. The Court held that at that stage it could not be said that no offence was made out against the applicant, that the Magistrate had rightly summoned him, and that the submissions related to disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Relying on R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642), 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 interference and dismissed the application.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101070

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38273 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sarvesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Agnivesh,Jadu Nandan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; 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 summoning order dated 31.08.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Room No.2, Kannauj against applicant for facing trial under sections 323, 325, 308, 506 1.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 633 of 2022 (State Vs. J.P. Jaipal and others), Police station Saurikh, District Kannauj.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that instant F.I.R. registered against the unknown person. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and charge sheet has not been submitted. The applicant has been summoned on application moved by prosecution, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that on perusal of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the applicant has not been named in the F.I.R. and the witnesses, P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 before the trial court have named the applicant and have given role of assault for catching hold to the applicant and the learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind summoned the applicant. The applicant has been summoned on the basis of statements of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, and P.W. 3 while all these witnesses are not eye witnesses of the alleged incident. There is major contradiction in the statement of witnesses. The learned Magistrate has not given any finding before allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The summoning order dated 31.08.2024 is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the

¶10

proceedings of the aforesaid case and submitted that on perusal of statement of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, specific role has been assigned to the applicant and trial court has rightly summoned the applicant. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no power to examine the factual dispute of the matter.

¶11

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. The learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicant in the aforesaid case. The order passed by the court below is just and proper. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶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 & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (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.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 1.7.2025

¶15

Meenu Singh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarvesh Yadav v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Yadav v. State of Up 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

Smt Shakina vs State of U.P. and Another

Naushad Ahamad vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamil and 17 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Seema and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Nisha Kumari Goud vs State of Up and Another

Lokesh Kumar Alias Lokesh Rajpoot vs State of U.P. and Another