Court No. - 84

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5193 of 2022

Applicant :- Anirudha Chaudhary

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Anothers

Counsel for Applicant :- Maya Pati Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

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

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire

proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 345 of 2019 (Azad

Kumar Vs. Anirudha Chaudhary and others), under Sections - 419, 420,

147, 467, 468, 470, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station - Siddharth Nagar,

District- Siddharth Nagar as well as the impugned summoning order,

pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial

Magistrate, Court No. 2, Naugarh, District - Siddharth Nagar. A further

prayer to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been

wrongly implicated in this matter without there being any cogent evidence

against him and as such the impugned cognizance order as well as the

entire criminal proceedings going on against the applicant are liable to be

set aside.

On the other hand, the learned AGA submits that the police has submitted

that the applicant has been summoned by the Court below having recorded

the statement of the complainant as well as witnesses under Sections 200

and 202 Cr.P.C. and, prima facie, at this stage of the matter it cannot be

said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. The

application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed.

From the perusal of the record, at this stage of the matter it cannot be said

that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. 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. At this

stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down

by Supreme Court in cases 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. The disputed defence of the accused

cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got right of

discharge under Sections 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C.,as the case may

be, through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take

all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4

SCC 39] has held that when charge sheet has been submitted and it has

been challenged by way of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the

High Court, the High Court is not in a position to weigh probabilities and

re-appreciating the material, if High Court does it, it may be time

consuming exercise and the legislative policy of expeditious disposal will

hamper. At this stage, this Court is not in a position to weight the factual

matrix of the case properly and accused has a right against charge sheet to

file a discharge application before the trial court and the trial court may

decide his discharge application, if there is no evidence against him.

No case is made out for quashing the entire proceedings of the aforesaid

criminal case. The relief sought by the applicants is refused.

The application is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

In case the applicant appears before the Court below and files a bail

application, his bail application shall be decided by the concerned Court

below in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of

Satendra Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another: Special Leave to Appeal

(Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021.

Order Date :- 8.3.2022

LBY

Digitally signed by LAL BAHADUR

YADAV

Date: 2022.03.15 16:47:27 IST

Reason:

Location: High Court of Judicature at