Allahabad High Court
Ram Bahadur Maurya vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 August, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143362 Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1817 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Bahadur Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Pundir,Rekha Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard Sri Ramesh Pundir, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C.application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Case No.350 of 2023 State vs. Indal Prasad Maurya & others (Case Crime No. 213 of 2022), under sections 419, 420, 471, 423 I.P.C., police Station-Karari, district-Kaushambi with regard to the applicant including Charge Sheet dated 13.11.2022 as well as Cognizance order dated12.04.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. No.ll, Kaushambi.
3. It is alleged in the FIR that applicant, being Manager of the Institution, has issued forged and fabricated marksheet to one-Anju Devi mentioning her date of birth as 20.10.2002 whereas in High School Marksheet her date of birth is 24.06.1997. Only to implicate the complainant' son under the POCSO Act and made Anju Devi as victim, they issued forged marksheet.
4. Applicant's counsel submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant has no concern with the issuance of forged marksheet to Anju Devi and the instant FIR has been lodged by filing application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. Anju Devi got admission in the applicant's institute showing the date of birth as 2006, therefore, the same has been recorded in the Register of the College. Prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicant.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that argument raised by applicant's counsel are disputed question of facts. On perusal of FIR as well as material evidence collected by I.O, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. hence, applicant is not entitled for relief as prayed. No interference is made out.
6. 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 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.
7. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex 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 and another, 2023 Live Law (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 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSSas the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
8. The present 482 application of applicant-Ram Bahadur Maurya, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Nitin Verma