SACHIN RAJPUT AND OTHERSversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4617 of 2024

Sachin Rajput And Others
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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.

Court No. - 74
                     HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

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

     2. 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.

     3. 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.

     4. 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.

     5. 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
                                                       A482 No. 4617 of 2024
                            2


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.

6. 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:-

     " 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."

7. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex
                                                                                               A482 No. 4617 of 2024
                                                                     3


                                           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.

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



                                                                                              (Deepak Verma,J.)
                                    May 12, 2026
                                    Meenu Singh




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