Rajesh Kumar Alias Raju Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135785

Court No. - 72

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 956 of 2025

Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Alias Raju Kushwaha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilendra Singh,Nitin Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 25.10.2020, cognizance order dated 24.05.2022 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.16846 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.1176 of 2018, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Rasoolpur, District Firozabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad.

¶8

It is alleged in the FIR that the applicant and co-accused took amount of Rs.6 lacs to provide job in the U.P.P.C.L. Applicant appeared in the examination but he could not succeed, then present FIR has been lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegation alleged in the FIR is false and baseless. Applicant has not received any money from the informant. Cognizance and summoning by learned magistrate is without application of judicial mind. Applicant has moved application before lodging of the FIR on 27.11.2018 that was considered by the Investigating Officer and part of the case diary.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submitted that submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant is disputed question on facts which cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Prima-facie offence is made out against the applicant.

¶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 arguments raised by both the parties. From perusal of FIR and statement of the informant, it discloses offence against the applicant is made out and at this stage, evidence cannot be examined in view of the Apex Court judgment. No interference is warranted. The present 482 application of applicant- Rajesh Kumar @ Raju Kushwaha , is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation

¶14

However, if the applicant moves discharge application within three weeks from today before the court below, the court below shall consider the same and decide the application within two months expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.8.2025 SKD

¶16

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

Rajesh Kumar Alias Raju Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Alias Raju Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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

Fareed Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishnu Keshari vs State of U.P.

Abhisek Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Srinivas vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rafi Khan and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul vs State of Up and Another