Disposed

Pankaj Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Oct 2025A482/8168/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing application disposed of, not entertained; alternative remedy before trial Magistrate at Section 173(2) CrPC final-report stage; charges not framed; Dharmatma Singh vs. Harminder Singh relied on; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) referred within quoted passage; Case Crime No. 1127 of 2012; Sections 409, 420 IPC; Police Station Kotwali Sadar, district Lakhimpu

What did the court decide?

None qua quashing; the application was disposed of without exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with liberty reserved to the applicant to raise all pleaded grounds before the trial M

Pankaj Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8168 of 2025

Pankaj Chauhan

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another	Lko.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Kartikay	Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 29

¶8

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶9

Applicant-Pankaj Chauhan has approached this Court through this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charge sheet dated 13.10.2022, as well as summoning order dated 05.01.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Lakhimpuri Kheri, and entire criminal proceedings arising out from Case Crime No.1127 of 2012, under Sections 409, 420 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, district Lakhimpuri Kheri.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant while referring to the grounds raised in this application has submitted that the prosecution of applicant is apparently misuse of process of law, therefore, interference is warranted by this Court by exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He prays that the entire proceedings of the subject case be quashed, in the interest of justice.

¶11

Concededly, the charges against the applicant has not been framed, therefore, the grounds and issues raised in this application can also be raised by the applicant before the trial court at the stage of consideration of final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In this regard, the reference can be made in the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmatma Singh vs. Harminder Singh & Ors. passed in Criminal Appeal No.1126 of 2011 (3) RCR Criminal 38, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if a party can avail alternative remedy according to the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, in that eventuality the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised. The relevant observations read as under :

¶12

A482 No. 8168 of 2025

¶13

¶14

"13. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It has been held by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866] that Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (which corresponds to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and such inherent power cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code and therefore where the Magistrate has not applied his mind under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. to the merits of the reports and passed order, the High Court ought not to consider a request for quashing the proceedings. In the case of R.P. Kapur (supra) on 10.12.1958, M.L. Sethi lodged a First Information Report against R.P. Kapur and alleged that he and his mother-in-law had committed offences under Sections 420-109, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. R.P. Kapur moved the Punjab High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the First Information Report. When the petition of R.P. Kapur was pending in the High Court, the police report was submitted under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and the High Court held that no case had been made out for quashing the proceedings under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and dismissed the petition. R. P. Kapur carried an appeal by way of Special Leave to this Court and this Court dismissed the appeal for inter alia the following reasons:

¶15

" In the present case the magistrate before whom the police report has been filed under S. 173 of the Code has yet not applied his mind to the merits of the said report and it may be assumed in favour of the appellant that his request for the quashing of the proceedings is not at the present stage covered by any specific provision of the Code. It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily, criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage…"

¶16

As we have found in the present case that learned Magistrate had not applied his mind to the merits of the reports filed under Section 173, Cr.P.C., we are of the considered opinion that the exercise of power by the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C., was at an interlocutory stage and was not warranted in the facts of this case."

¶17

In view of the above background of the case as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court without meaning any expression of

¶18

A482 No. 8168 of 2025

¶19

¶20

opinion on the merits of the case, does not find it to be a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, it shall be open for the applicant to raise all the grounds pleaded in this application, before the Magistrate at an appropriate stage.

¶21

With these observations, the application is disposed of.

¶22

October 7, 2025 R./

¶23

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAJEEV KUMAR SACHDEVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pankaj Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pankaj Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Brij Bihari Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Suresh @ Suresh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Satyapal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Mohammad Asad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rakesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another