The Hon. Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar and others reported in

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the Charge Sheet dated 22.02.2024 as well as Cognizance/Summoning Order dated 27.09.2024 passed by Learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.3/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat in Case No. Nil of 2024 [State Versus Prem Narayan and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 08 of 2023, Under Section 295- A of I.P.C., Police Station Sikandara, District- Kanpur Dehat, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2 Kanpur Dehat.

3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that informant-opposite party no. 2, who is coordinator and the member of Bajrang Dal, lodged F.I.R. alleging that accused persons have pasted banner to disturb communal harmony in the society. Counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. On perusal of averments as alleged in the F.I.R. and the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., no offence under the alleged section is made out. He further submitted that the evidence collected by the I.O. is not fulfill the ingredients to constitute the offence under the aforesaid section. Whole proceeding against the applicant is abuse of the process of the court. He next submits that cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is without application of judicial mind as he has summoned the accused persons without perusing the entire material. He further submits that no prosecution could proceed against the applicants, in such circumstances.

4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and submitted that submission raised by counsel for the applicants is based on factual dispute. The trial court has to examine the same. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no power to examine the factual dispute of the matter.

5. The Hon. 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."

6. The Apex Court in Priti Saraf and another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another reported in AIR 2021 SC 1531 has held that: "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 examine its correctness. Whatever appears on face of 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."

7. 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. The learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicants in the aforesaid case. 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. The Hon. Apex Court in Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642 has held thus: "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.

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

8. The scope of interference, while quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that too for a serious offence like Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is very limited. The Court would exercise its power to quash the proceedings only if it finds that taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all.

9. At the stage of deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the High Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in the chargesheet. The High Court by the impugned order has done exactly the same."

8. The Hon. Apex Court in Pramila Devi and others Vs. State of Jharkhand 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 467 has held that the Magistrate order taking cognizance of a police report cannot be faulted only because, it was not a reasoned order. If the cognizance is taken after recording a finding regarding the existence of prima facie case based on reading of the case record, explicit reasons are not required.

9. 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.

10. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Meenu Singh MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the Charge Sheet dated 22.02.2024 as well as Cognizance/Summoning Order dated 27.09.2024 passed by Learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.3/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat in Case No. Nil of 2024 [State Versus Prem Narayan and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 08 of 2023, Under Section 295- A of I.P.C., Police Station Sikandara, District- Kanpur Dehat, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2 Kanpur Dehat.

3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that informant-opposite party no. 2, who is coordinator and the member of Bajrang Dal, lodged F.I.R. alleging that accused persons have pasted banner to disturb communal harmony in the society. Counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. On perusal of averments as alleged in the F.I.R. and the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., no offence under the alleged section is made out. He further submitted that the evidence collected by the I.O. is not fulfill the ingredients to constitute the offence under the aforesaid section. Whole proceeding against the applicant is abuse of the process of the court. He next submits that cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is without application of judicial mind as he has summoned the accused persons without perusing the entire material. He further submits that no prosecution could proceed against the applicants, in such circumstances.

4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and submitted that submission raised by counsel for the applicants is based on factual dispute. The trial court has to examine the same. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no power to examine the factual dispute of the matter.

5. The Hon. 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."

6. The Apex Court in Priti Saraf and another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another reported in AIR 2021 SC 1531 has held that: "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 examine its correctness. Whatever appears on face of 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."

7. 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. The learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicants in the aforesaid case. 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. The Hon. Apex Court in Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642 has held thus: "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.

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

8. The scope of interference, while quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that too for a serious offence like Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is very limited. The Court would exercise its power to quash the proceedings only if it finds that taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all.

9. At the stage of deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the High Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in the chargesheet. The High Court by the impugned order has done exactly the same."

8. The Hon. Apex Court in Pramila Devi and others Vs. State of Jharkhand 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 467 has held that the Magistrate order taking cognizance of a police report cannot be faulted only because, it was not a reasoned order. If the cognizance is taken after recording a finding regarding the existence of prima facie case based on reading of the case record, explicit reasons are not required.

9. 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.

10. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Meenu Singh MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad