Chandrapal Singh Yadav & Anr. v. State of U.P & Anr.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3974 of 2024 (State Vs. Chandrapal Yadav and another), arising out of crime no.525 of 2020, under section 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Mauranipur, District-Jhansi, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Mauranipur, Jhansi as well as to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 04.10.2020 submitted by the Investigating Officer and impugned cognizance order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the Magistrate concerned in aforementioned case.

It is alleged in the first information report that named accused persons entered into the house of the informant and they assaulted the informant, thereafter, they assaulted her 14 years minor son. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The contents of first information report and statement of witnesses, are not supporting the prosecution case. Instant first information report has been lodged on account of some property dispute. Evidences collected by the Investigating Officer are also not supporting the prosecution case. Charge-sheet was submitted in the year 2020 but Court has taken cognizance in the year 2024 after about four years. Prima facie, it is a civil nature dispute and liable to be quashed.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that statements of witnesses and medical examination report, are supporting the prosecution version. It is not a case of false implication. Learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicant. He next submitted that arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants are factual aspects of the matter, which cannot be considered at this stage.

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:- "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. "

The Apex Court in Priti Saraf and another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another has held that: its correctness. Whatever appears on "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 face of examine 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. "

6. 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 applicants. 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.

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, 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.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Aditya