Application to quash a charge sheet and proceedings in a hurt and criminal intimidation case, alleging false implication and simple injuries. The court held the objections raised disputed questions of fact for trial, found no ground for quashing, and dismissed the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51898
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38649 of 2024
Applicant :- Raj Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jyoti,Kanchan Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
"14. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.")
because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case."
"To exercise powers under Section 482, complaint in its entirety have to be examined on basis of allegation made in complaint/FIR/Charge sheet. High Court at that stage not under an obligation to go into matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on face of complaint/FIR/charge sheet to be taken into consideration without any critical examination of same. Offence ought to appear ex facie on complaint/FIR/charge sheet and other documentary evidence, on record. It is thus settled that exercise of inherent power of High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinize complaint/FIR/charge sheet in deciding whether case is rarest of rare case, to scuttle prosecution at its inception. Whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing such proceedings."
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.
Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Asha
Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet, cognizance order and criminal proceedings under Sections 452/323/325/326/504/506 IPC could be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar and othersRelied on¶5
(2019) 6 SCC 107 · Who else cites this
Priti Saraf and another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and AnotherRelied on¶6
AIR 2021 SC 1531 · Who else cites this
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶8
A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalRelied on¶8
1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaRelied on¶8
1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherRelied on¶8
2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Raj Kumar And 3 Others
State of U.P.
Another
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
