Sudesh Sahani and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134468

Court No. - 72

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38642 of 2024

Applicant :- Sudesh Sahani And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adiba Khatoon,Aditya Kumar Kashyap,Alok Kumar Pandey 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 No. 64/2024 dated 03.05.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 01.10.2024 as well as the entire proceeding of Case No. 12882 of 2024 (State Vs. Sudesh Sahani and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 266 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Maduadeeh, District- Deoria, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge, Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 25, Deoria.

¶8

It is alleged in the first information report that on 28.12.2023 named accused persons assaulted grandson and granddaughter of the informant, as a result, they received grievous injuries. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegations alleged in the first information report are false, baseless and not supported by any cogent evidence. Instant first information report has been lodged with malicious intention only to harass the applicants. Prima facie , no offence under alleged sections is made out.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions raised by applicants' counsel and submits that, prima facie , offfence is made out against the applicants and injured have received grievous injuries. Medical Examination Report is also supporting the prosecution case. Other submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶10

Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From perusal of record, prima facie , offence is made out against the applicants. No case for interference by this Court is made out. 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 & 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. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Aditya

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sudesh Sahani and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudesh Sahani and 3 Others 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