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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:59707

Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43778 of 2024 Applicant :- Sotlesh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Kumar Singh,Sujata Choudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 06.11.2020 as well as impugned summoning order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.3, Meerut and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.24427 of 2022 (old Case No.216/9 of 2022) arising out of Case Crime No.213 of 2019, under Sections-365, 342, 354, 354B, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police StationDaurala, District-Meerut, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Meerut, including impugned Non Bailable Warrant dated 14.11.2024 issued by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Meerut.

¶7

Counsel for the applicants submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Instant F.I.R. has been lodged as counter blast as applicants earlier lodged F.I.R. against the opposite party no. 2. The FIR is delayed for which no explanation has been given and victim has not supported the prosecution case.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and submitted that victim was recovered from the railway station on 12.01.2020 after about two years of the incident. On perusal of F.I.R., it is apparent that victim went with the applicants and the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. are supporting the prosecution story. The victim has made allegation against the applicants and Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet them. Moreover, the submission of counsel for the applicants is based on factual dispute. The trial court has to examine the same. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no power to examine the factual dispute of the matter.

¶9

The Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107 has held in para No.14 as follows:-

¶10

"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."

¶11

6. The Apex Court in Priti Saraf and another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another reported in AIR 2021 SC 1531 has held that:

¶12

"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."

¶13

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. From the record, it is apparent that victim in her statement recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., has made allegation against the applicants with regard to physical assault. The submission of counsel for the applicants that instant F.I.R. is counter blast, cannot be accepted.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Meenu Singh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sotlesh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sotlesh 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

Similar cases

Premchandra vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Amit Mishra and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Gulati and 9 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Singh and 2 Other vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Suresh Rani vs State of U.P. and Another