Allahabad High Court
Devendra Kumar @ Mama Chaudhry vs State Of U.P.And Another on 16 April, 2026
Author: Gautam Chowdhary
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:84706
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18452 of 2022
Devendra Kumar @ Mama Chaudhry
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P.And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Vinay Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan, Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun
Along with :
1.
Application U/s 482 No. 18352 of 2022:
Devendra Kumar @ Mama Chaudhry
Versus
State of U.P.and another
2.
Application U/s 482 No. 21939 of 2022:
Vinod Kumar
Versus
State of U.P. and another
Court No. - 82
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the accused-applicant Devendra Kumar @ Mama Chaudhry in Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. Nos. 18452 and 18352 of 2022, Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan learned counsel for the accused-applicant Vinod Kumar in Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21939 of 2022, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
2. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Nos. 18452 of 2022 has been filed by accused Devendra Kumar @ Mama Chaudhry for quashing of entire proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 112/9 of 2022 (Vinod Kumar Vs. Devendra Kumar) under Section 138 of N.I.Act, Police Station Adarsh Mandi, Tehsil and District Shamli pending before learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Shamli at Kairana as well as summoning order dated 30.03.2022 passed in the aforesaid case, whereas application under Section 18352 of 2022 has also been filed by accused Devendra Kumar @ Mama Chaudhry for quashing of the entire proceedings arising out Complaint Case No. 111/9 of 2022 (Pramod Kumar Vs. Devendra Kumar) under Section 138 of N.I.Act, Police Station Adarsh Mandi pending before learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Shamli at Kairana as well as summoning order dated 30.03.20222 passed in the aforesaid case and that Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.21939 of 2022 has been filed by accused Vinod Kumar for quashing of entire proceedings arising out of Criminal Case No. 6943/9 of 2022 (State Vs. Vinod) arising out of Case Crime No. 137 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 427, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Adarsh Mandi, District Shamli, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shamli, District Shamli as well as to quash the charge sheet filed in the aforesaid case and also the cognizance order dated 20.06.2022
3. The dispute is amongst three real brothers.
4. When the criminal application u/s 18352 of 2022 (Devendra Kumar @ Mama Chaudhry Vs. State of U.P. and another) was taken up on 30.06.2022, on that day, learned counsel for the applicant had argued that the matter relates to a financial transaction between the parties and the said matter can be well considered by Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and on such request, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.06.2022 had referred the matter before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for amicable settlement between the parties and thereafter the two applications under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. has also been connected .
5. The report of Mediation Centre dated 05.02.2023 shows that the aforesaid attempt could not succeed and did not bear any fruit for certain reasons as such the mediation between the parties have failed. The Court, therefore, deems it fit to decide the matter on merits.
6. All the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicants relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon on behalf of applicants. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. The submissions made by the 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. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins.
7. Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
8. The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
9. Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
10. The reliefs as sought by the accused-applicants in the aforesaid applications are refused.
11. The interim order, if any, is vacated.
12. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the applicants and there may be coercive processes issued against the applicants by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the applicants.
13. As the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific direction need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex court.
14. With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed off.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) April 16, 2026 S.Ali