High Court Can't Assume Jurisdiction U/S 482 CrPC To End Trial If Case Involves Disputed Questions Of Facts: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that where disputed questions of facts are involved, it cannot under Section 482 CrPC assume jurisdiction for appreciation of evidence. The case must be dealt by the trial court, held the Court.Holding that disputed questions of facts were involved, Justice Deepak Verma held,“it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of...
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that where disputed questions of facts are involved, it cannot under Section 482 CrPC assume jurisdiction for appreciation of evidence. The case must be dealt by the trial court, held the Court.
Holding that disputed questions of facts were involved, Justice Deepak Verma held,
“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.”
Applicant had approached the High Court seeking quashing of entire criminal proceedings under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 307, 120-B I.P.C. It was pleaded that the criminal proceedings were initiated due to old animosity and no case was made out for injury under Section 307 IPC [Attempt to murder].
Applicant no.1, a lawyer in the district court, also pleaded that the bail granted to the applicants had not been misused by them.
The Court however held,
“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.”
It held that since firearm use and intention to kill was mentioned in the FIR and witness statements revealed prima facie case against the applicants, the criminal proceedings could not be quashed.
While granting 3 weeks' time to the District Lawyer to surrender before the Trial Court, the High Court protected him from any coercive action.
Case Title: Harendra Bansal And Another v. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2136 of 2025]