Allahabad High Court: In an application filed by two accused persons seeking quashing of chargesheet and criminal proceedings pending against him under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 307, 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) before the Trial Court, the Single Judge Bench of Deepak Verma, J., dismissed the application, holding that from perusal of FIR and other material evidence, it was clear that there was intention to kill the informant. The Court, further, noted that many of the grounds taken by the accused related to a disputed question of fact and that the same cannot be considered for exercising the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Background
The accused persons contended that there was no injury caused to the informant, though the accused had fired at him with a firearm. They also contended that the Investigating Officer had not collected any material evidence to prosecute them. Additionally, the FIR was challenged by all the accused persons before the Court, whereby the proceedings were stayed till the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’).
Analysis
Upon perusal of the application, the Court noted that many of the grounds taken by the accused related to a disputed question of fact. Noting this, the Court reiterated that the appreciation of evidence was a function of the Trial Court.
“The Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law.”
The Court further reiterated that the power under Section 482 of the CrPC at pre-trial stage should not be used routinely, it has to be used sparingly-only in such cases, where it manifestly appeared that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in the FIR or charge sheet and the supporting material, prima facie, do not disclose the commission of any offence by the accused.
“The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage.”
Given the aforesaid, the Court held that there was no ground for quashing the proceedings of the impugned case. There was no ground which might call for any interference by this Court in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC, as the proceedings did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
In this regard, the Court placed reliance on R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122.
The Court held that from perusal of the FIR and other material evidence, it was clear that there was an intention to kill the informant. The FIR and witness statements recorded during the investigation, prima facie, disclosed that the offence under Section 307 was made out against the accused persons. At this stage, it could not be ascertained who fired the firearm in the group of 16 persons.
Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
However, considering the prayer that the accused 1 was a practicing advocate in the District Court, the Court directed that he shall surrender before the Trial Court within three weeks. If he applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the Trial Court. Lastly, for the period of three weeks from today or till the time of his surrender, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him.
[Harendra Bansal v. State of U.P., Application u/S 482 No. 2136 of 2025, decided on 22-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the applicant: Nanhe Lal Tripathi
For the respondent: Government Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
