HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 6571 of 2020
Applicant :- Maya Devi And Anr
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Pandey,Rajesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records.
The applicants, Maya Devi and Prem Prakash Sharma, by means of this application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 4.6.2014, and cognizance order dated 24.6.2015 as well as entire proceeding of the Criminal Case No. 4427 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 1001 of 2013, pending in the court of ACJM Ist, Budaun, (State Vs. Deepak Sharma and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Budaun, District Budaun.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Learned counsel has pointed out towards certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application by contending that 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.
Considered the rival submissions made by the parties.
The submissions made by 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. Veracity of the statements are material evidence of fact and is not to be ascertained in this proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. of this Court because the same is within the jurisdiction of Trial Court and is a point of fact to be seen in the trial. In view of law propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844, Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474, Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781, Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296, Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr.L.J. 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494, State of Bihar V. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1, there is no ground for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The prayer for quashing proceeding of the aforesaid criminal case is refused.
However, it is made clear that after recording of evidence, under Section 244 of Cr.P.C., application for discharge, under Section 245 of Cr.P.C., may be moved before the court, concerned, which may be decided as per provisions and precedents of law, on the subject.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.2.2020