Durg Vijay Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 09.12.2019, cognizance order dated 10.06.2020 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.3736 of 2000 (State vs. Durg Vijay Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.254 of 2019, under sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Sidhari, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is alleged in the FIR that the informant on 13.10.2019 went for fishing, then applicants reached there and assaulted with lathi, danda and firearm, as a result thereof applicants received injuries and fracture in right clavicle. Allegation alleged in the FIR is false and baseless. Civil suit is pending between the parties and witnesses are not supporting the prosecution story.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicants' counsel and submitted that injured has received grievous injury. Contused swelling size 5cm x 4cm at lower end of left arm reddish brown in colour, x-ray advised left arms and left elbow joints. Contused swelling size 16 cm.x 12 cm. at covering lower end of left thigh, left knee and upper and left leg. X-ray advised left thigh (lower end), left knee joint and left upper end of left leg, reddish brown in colour. He next submitted that submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants are disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Evidence collected by the Investigating Officer prima-facie discloses offence against the applicants is made out. Medical examination report is also supporting the prosecution story.

¶12

The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed

¶13

NA528 No. 4928 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

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.

¶16

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 528 B.N.S.S as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶17

Considered the submission of both the parties. Injury received by the injured primafacie discloses offence against the applicants is made out. No interference is warranted. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application of applicants- Durg Vijay Singh, Bhupendra Singh, Rajvijay Singh, Rajeev Pratap Singh & Vir Pratap Singh is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

¶18

However, it is directed that if applicants shall surrender before the concerned Court below within three weeks from today and in case applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922.

¶19

For the period of three weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶20

September 15, 2025 SKD

¶21

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶22

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

Durg Vijay Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durg Vijay Singh and 4 Others 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