Dismissed¶22

Sachin Rajput and Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC11 May 2026A482/4617/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Application U/S 482 No. 4617 of 2024; Deepak Verma, J.; quashing of summoning order dated 12.10.2023; Complaint Case No. 13004 of 2023 (Kalpana Lodhi v. Sachin Rajput); Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC; Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Mahila Thana Jhansi; Section 482 Cr.P.C. sparing use at pre-trial stage; disputed questions of fact; appreciation of evidence is for trial court; Section 528 BNSS inherent power; mediation failed 28.09.2024; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab; Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma; Zandu Pharmaceutical; application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. ¶11

Sachin Rajput and Others Vs State of Up and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 12.10.2023 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 13004 of 2023 (Smt. Kalpana Lodhi Vs. Sachin Rajput and Others) under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

On perusal of the statement, the opposite party no. 2 was physically and mentally tortured by the applicants and was examined by a doctor; prima facie offence is made out against the applicants, and the Court will not go into the merits regarding conviction.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court.

¶11

Key takeaways

In exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court cannot assume the trial court's jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial; the power at the pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but sparingly, only where a legal bar to institution or continuance of proceedings manifestly appears, and disputed questions of fact and the defence of the accused cannot be considered at the pre-trial stage.ratio¶14
In view of the Apex Court judgments relied upon, no ground for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 13004 of 2023 is made out calling for interference in exercise of the Court's inherent power under Section 528 BNSS, as the proceedings do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against summoning order dated 12.10.2023 and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 13004 of 2023 (Smt. Kalpana Lodhi Vs. Sachin Rajput and Others) under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District Jhansi — DISMISSED. Held: appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court; the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (invoked alongside Section 528 BNSS) at the pre-trial stage must be used sparingly, not routinely, and disputed questions of fact and the defence of the accused cannot be considered at that stage; on the complaint statement the opposite party no. 2 was found physically and mentally tortured by the applicants and medically examined, so prima facie offence was made out. Reliance placed on R.P. Kapur, Manik B., State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.; mediation between the parties had failed (report dated 28.09.2024).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4617 of 2024

¶3

Sachin Rajput And Others

¶4

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Shiv Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Akhilesh Kumar Khare, G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 74

¶6

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶7

Case called out in revised list. No one appeared on behalf of applicants. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is present.

¶8

The present application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 12.10.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 13004 of 2023 (Smt. Kalpana Lodhi Vs. Sachin Rajput and Others) under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District Jhansi, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior Division) FTC, (C.A.W.) Jhansi.

¶9

On perusal of record, it is evident that vide order dated 17.05.2024, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre. As per Mediation report dated 28.09.2024, no agreement entered between the parties.

¶10

Counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that from perusal of the contents of complaint and statement, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicants. The summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate is just and proper.

¶11

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

¶12

A482 No. 4617 of 2024

¶13

¶14

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.

¶15

Considered the argument raised by counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. On perusal of statement, it is apparent that the opposite party no. 2 was physically and mentally tortured by the applicants and she was examined by the doctor. Prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. The Court is not going into merit of the case with regard to the conviction of the applicant.The Apex Court in its judgment passed in the case of Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642 , para 6 and 7 are quoted herein below:-

¶16

" 6. Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at the stage of such trial.

¶17

7. Such an exercise, in our considered view, is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C."

¶18

In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex

¶19

A482 No. 4617 of 2024

¶20

¶21

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 528 BNSS as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶22

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

¶23

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶24

May 12, 2026 Meenu Singh

¶25

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

Sachin Rajput and Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Rajput and Others v. State of Up 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

Vivek Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Hemant Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Saxena and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Devesh Vs State of U.P. and Another