Manoj Tyagi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87622

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38334 of 2024

Applicant :- Manoj Tyagi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh 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 dated 06.11.2019 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.676 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.338 of 2019 (State vs. Manoj Tyagi & another), under sections 325, 332, 353, 506, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Sajeti, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Civil Judge (junior Division), Ghatampur, Kanpur Dehat.

¶8

It is alleged in the FIR that informant, who was posted as Junior Engineer at Saifai, District Etawah at 33/11 K.V. Sub Centre, Bhojepur, on 19.10.2019, he went to check the electric line of the house of the applicant no.1, then it was found that the applicant no.1 was involved in electric theft. When papers were demanded related to electric connection then the applicants become aggressive and assaulted the informant with hammer. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. During investigation, no substantial evidence collected by the Investigating Officer to implicate the applicants. He next submitted that the allegation against the applicant no.2 is that he became very aggressive and started abusing informant. There is no allegation of assault by the applicants. Cognizance and summoning by learned magistrate is without application of judicial mind.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submitted that the contents of FIR is supported by medical examination report. Other submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants is disputed question on facts which cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Trial court has rightly summoned the applicants in the present case.

¶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 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

Considered the arguments raised by both the parties. Investigating officer has collected cogent evidence against the applicants. No interference is warranted. The present 482 application of applicants- Manoj Tyagi & Ram Prakash Tyagi , is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

¶13

Order Date :- 23.5.2025 SKD

¶14

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

Manoj Tyagi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Tyagi and Another 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

Rajveer Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Darshan vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahkar Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Irfan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hitesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another