Dismissed¶14

Arun Kumar Bharti v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 May 2025A482/40068/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing application dismissed; challenge to Charge Sheet No. 158 of 2023 dated 20.8.2023, cognizance order dated 10.4.2024 and entire proceeding of Case No. 4220 of 2024; Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC; Case Crime No. 139 of 2023, P.S. Obra, District Sonbhadra; disputed question of fact not decidable at pre-trial stage; appreciation of evidence is function of trial court; inherent power to be used sparingly; relied on R.P. Kapur AIR 1960 SC 866, Manik B. 2023 Live Law (SC) 642, Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, P.P. Sharma 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.

What did the court decide?

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.

Arun Kumar Bharti vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceeding of Case No. 4220 of 2024, Charge Sheet No. 158 of 2023 dated 20.8.2023 and cognizance order dated 10.4.2024 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC (State Vs. Danish @ Mistar and others, Case Crime No. 139 of 2023, P.S. Obra, District Sonbhadra) should be quashed in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶7

Court's answer

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but sparingly, only in appropriate cases where a legal bar to institution or continuance of proceedings exists, or where the F.I.R., charge-sheet and supporting materials taken at face value disclose no commission of any offence.

¶12

Key takeaways

Disputed questions of fact and the defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at the pre-trial stage.ratio¶12
In light of R.P. Kapur, Manik B., Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical, no ground for quashing the proceedings was made out and the proceedings do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity calling for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Deepak Verma, J.) dismissed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application by Arun Kumar Bharti seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 4220 of 2024, Charge Sheet No. 158 of 2023 dated 20.8.2023 and cognizance order dated 10.4.2024 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC in State Vs. Danish @ Mistar and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 139 of 2023, Police Station Obra, District Sonbhadra. Held: appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court and the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume that jurisdiction so as to end the trial; the inherent power at the pre-trial stage must be exercised sparingly, not routinely, and disputed questions of fact and the defence of the accused cannot be considered at that stage. Following R.P. Kapur (AIR 1960 SC 866), Manik B. (2023 Live Law (SC) 642), Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283), the court found no illegality or infirmity in the proceedings warranting interference and dismissed the application.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74862

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40068 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Arun Kumar Bharti Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Nath,Manoj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶7

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 4220 of 2024 as well as Charge Sheet No. 158 of 2023 dated 20.8.2023 and cognizance order dated 10.4.2024 under Section 147, 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC (State Vs. Danish @ Mistar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 139 of 2023, Police Station Obra, District Sonbhadra.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the version of the F.I.R. when opposite party no.2, first informant, was going towards his house from the way of Billi School situated at Subhash Petrol Pump, Obara Chopan Road by his motorcycle on 4.3.2023 at 10-11 p.m. then named accused persons appeared on the way and assaulted him with lathi and danda and thereafter he received injuries.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that perusal of statement of witnesses no offence is made out and the instant F.I.R. has been lodged after about more than three months. As per the statement of constable, the opposite party no.2 was medically examined on 24.6.2023 and he was not examined at the time of incident. He further submits that all the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are false and not supported by any cogent evidence.

¶10

Per contra , learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that all the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. prima facie discloses offence against the applicant and from the record it is apparent that injured received grievous injury and he was admitted in Trama Centra, B.H.U. and he has instructions that informant was medically examined on the same day. He further submits that the other submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are disputed questions of fact and same cannot be decided by means of this application. Learned A.G.A. further submits that from the record it is apparent that the injured received injuries and he was referred to Trama Centre, B.H.U. where he was examined. He further submits that the allegations levelled in

¶11

the F.I.R. and the statement of witnesses supported the prosecution story. He further submits that the argument of the applicant that the opposite party no.2 was examined after about three months of the incident is not supported by any cogent evidence.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

The present 482 application of applicant- Arun Kumar Bharti , is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

¶15

Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Kumar Manish

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arun Kumar Bharti v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Bharti 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

Ashutosh Chaubey @ Vipin and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Syed Junaid Ali vs State of U.P. and Another

Mainudin vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj Kumar Alias Anoj Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Ikhtiyar Ahsan @ Iftiyar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd Javed @ Umesh Gupta and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another