Anand Mishra @ Monu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132656

Court No. - 72

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41240 of 2024

Applicant :- Anand Mishra @ Monu And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pranesh Kumar Mishra 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 charge-sheet No. 26/2000 dated 01.03.2020, cognizance/summoning order dated 12.10.2020, bailable warrant dated 06.01.2023 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.1022 of 2020 (State vs. Anand Mishra and another) arising out of Case Crime No.0028 of 2020, under sections 147, 148, 323, 395, 506, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Sujanganj, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Magistrate-II, Jaunpur.

¶8

Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Instant application has filed with malice intention only to harass the applicants. The statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer is not scriptic and different dates are mentioned in regard to the incident. Moreover, he has submitted that cognizance and summoning by learned magistrate is in printed proforma.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicants' counsel and submitted that submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants are disputed question of fact, which cannot be examined at this stage and cognizance and summoning by learned magistrate has challenged by the applicants after about five years. There is no illegality in cognizance and summoning order.

¶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

¶11

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.

¶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 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.

¶13

Considered the submission of both the parties. No interference is warranted. The present 482 application of applicants- Anand Mishra @ Monu & Vinay Kumar Mishra, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.8.2025 SKD

¶15

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

Anand Mishra @ Monu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Mishra @ Monu 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