Allahabad High Court
RANVEER SINGH AND 6 OTHERSversusState of UP AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash Criminal Case No.122 of 2024, which involved offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act, as well as the charge sheet and cognizance order. The parties attempted mediation, which failed, and the petitioners argued that the prosecution evidence was unreliable and that the allegations were false, raising pure questions of fact. The High Court held that such factual disputes are for the trial court to determine and that there was no abuse of process or legal bar to the prosecution. Referring to established Supreme Court precedents on the limited circumstances in which Section 482 may be invoked, the Court found none of those categories applicable. Consequently, the application to quash the proceedings was dismissed and any interim order vacated.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground of disputed facts and alleged false implication of the accused
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 323, 354(B), 452, 504, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 7, 8
Subjects
- Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- quash of criminal proceedings
- POCSO Act
- abuse of process
- trial court jurisdiction
- mediation
- evidentiary credibility
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32616 of 2024
Ranveer Singh And 6 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : M.P.S. Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bipin Kumar, G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
seeking the quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.122
of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.72 of 2024 under
Sections 147, 452, 323, 354(B), 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section
7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Mahua Kheda, District
Aligarh, pending before learned Special Judge (POCSO
Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh as well as to quash the
charge sheet dated 16.04.2024 and also to quash the
cognizance order dated 09.07.2024 passed in the aforesaid
case.
2. It seems that in order to explore the possibility of an
amicable settlement between the parties, the matter was
referred to undergo mediation proceedings. The report of
Mediation Centre dated 20.12.2025 that the aforesaid attempt
could not succeed and did not bear any fruit for certain reasons.
The Court, therefore, deems it fit to decide the matter on
merits.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Bipin Kumar,
learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned AGA.
Perused the record.
4. All the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicants
relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been
called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution
A482 No. 32616 of 2024
2
evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various
intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon on
behalf of applicants. The veracity and credibility of material
furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and
false implication has been pleaded. The submissions made by
the learned counsel for the applicants call for adjudication on
pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated
upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the
submissions made on points of law can also be more
appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This
Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be
persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins.
5. Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court
this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law
that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well
settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash
Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs.
Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3)
Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3
SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
6. The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur
Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State
of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also
recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may
justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of
them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above
referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa
Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations
made against the accused or the evidence collected by the
Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the
allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to
believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where
criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with
ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit
cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings
may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has
A482 No. 32616 of 2024
3
recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C.
or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
7. Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this
Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
8. The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see
any abuse of the Court's process either.
9. The interim order, if any, is vacated.
10. The instant application lacks merit and is accordingly,
dismissed.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
September 23, 2026
S.Ali
Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…