Rohit Pratap @ Rohit Verma @ Rintu And 2 v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko & Anr.

Srivastava, Surya Deep Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J. Applicants have approached this Court through this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the impugned order dated 13.6.2025 passed by Special Judge (Gangster Act)/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No. 1195 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 139 of 2024, under Section 3(1) Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Baddupur, District Barabanki and the proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the applicants while referring to the grounds raised in this application has submitted that the prosecution of applicants is apparently misuse of process of law, therefore, interference is warranted by this Court by exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He prays that the entire proceedings of the subject case be quashed, in the interest of justice.

Concededly, the charges against the applicants have not been framed, therefore, the grounds and issues raised in this application can also be raised by the applicants before the trial court at the stage of consideration of final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In this regard, the reference can be made in the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmatma Singh vs. Harminder Singh & Ors. 2 A482 No. 8458 of 2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1126 of 2011 (3) RCR Criminal 38, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if a party can avail alternative remedy according to the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, in that eventuality the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised. The relevant observations read as under : "13. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

It has been held by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866] that Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (which corresponds to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and such inherent power cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code and therefore where the Magistrate has not applied his mind under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. to the merits of the reports and passed order, the High Court ought not to consider a request for quashing the proceedings. In the case of R.P. Kapur (supra) on 10.12.1958, M.L. Sethi lodged a First Information Report against R.P. Kapur and alleged that he and his mother-in-law had committed offences under Sections 420-109, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

R.P. Kapur moved the Punjab High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the First Information Report. When the petition of R.P. Kapur was pending in the High Court, the police report was submitted under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and the High Court held that no case had been made out for quashing the proceedings under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and dismissed the petition. R. P. Kapur carried an appeal by way of Special Leave to this Court and this Court dismissed the appeal for inter alia the following reasons: " In the present case the magistrate before whom the police report has been filed under S. 173 of the Code has yet not applied his mind to the merits of 3 A482 No. 8458 of 2025 the said report and it may be assumed in favour of the appellant that his request for the quashing of the proceedings is not at the present stage covered by any specific provision of the Code.