# Aniruddha Sharma v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 136
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No.32676 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aniruddha-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44671
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law -Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section 482 -The High
Court is not to appreciate and analyse
factual aspect of case because the same
is a question of evidence before trial
Court.
3 All. Anirudha Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
137
Once trial Court has summoned the accused
after treating the Protest Petition as a
Complaint in which the contention of protest
petition has been reiterated by complainant in
his statement recorded under Section 200
Cr.P.C., which has further been corroborated
by testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 examined
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. (Para 5,6,7 ,9)

Criminal Application rejected. (E-3)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
190(1)(b)
Cr.P.C.,
notwithstanding
the
contrary opinion of the police expressed in
the final report. The law on this point is trite
and is no more res integra. The observations
made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Abhinandan Jha (supra) have already
been quoted in the earlier part of the order
and this aspect of law does not need further
elaboration and the power of the court below
in this regard stands well recognized. The
mere filing of a final report or filing of a
favourable report to the accused will not
obliterate or eradicate the allegations of the
F.I.R. or the incriminating material collected
in support of it by the Investigating Officer
on the basis of which the charge sheet was
submitted. It is for the court below to
exercise its judicial discretion judiciously in
this regard whenever it is called upon to
evaluate and appreciate the facts of the case
and adjudicate upon the sufficiency or
insufficiency of material on the basis of
which the cognizance may be taken in a
given case or the summoning of the accused
may be done or the charges against the
accused may be framed in a particular case.
The law regarding the required standards of
sufficiency of material which may justify the
summoning of an accused or the framing of
charges in a particular case is also too well
settled to be referred to in any great detail
and the relevant law as has been laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court and by this Court
in this regard has to be kept in perspective at
the appropriate stages or at different stages as
they may arrive in a given case.

16. In view of aforesaid discussion,
the impugned criminal proceedings do not
call for any interference by this Court.

17. The applicants must submit to
the jurisdiction of the trial court. If they
have not sought their bail so far, they may
appear before the court below and do the
needful in that regard. If an application of
seeking bail is duly moved within a period of
five weeks from now, the same shall be
decided expeditiously in accordance with
law by the court concerned. In the aforesaid
period or till the date of appearance of the
accused in the court below, whichever is
earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken
or given effect to.

18. For reasons as discussed above,
the prayer contained in this application
cannot be allowed. The application in that
regard therefore stands dismissed.

19. It is made clear that any
observations made in the order must not
be construed to have any reflection upon
the ultimate merits of the case.
----------
(2019)11ILR A136

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM , J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.32676 of 2019
u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Aniruddha Sharma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ram Chandra .

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law -Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section 482 -The High
Court is not to appreciate and analyse
factual aspect of case because the same
is a question of evidence before trial
Court.
3 All. Anirudha Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
137
Once trial Court has summoned the accused
after treating the Protest Petition as a
Complaint in which the contention of protest
petition has been reiterated by complainant in
his statement recorded under Section 200
Cr.P.C., which has further been corroborated
by testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 examined
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. (Para 5,6,7 ,9)

Criminal Application rejected. (E-3)

List of cases cited: -

1. St. of A.P Vs Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT (2010)
(6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ
3844

2. Hamida Vs Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474

3. Monica Kumar Vs St. of U.P, (2008) 8 SCC
781

4. Popular Muthiah Vs St., Rep. by Insptr. of
Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296

5. Dhanlakshmi Vs R.Prasana Kumar, (1990)
Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494

6. St. of Bih. Vs Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ
1005: AIR 1989 SC 1
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J. )

1. The applicant, by means of this
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court with prayer to quash the
summoning
order
dated
24.04.2018,
passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial
Magistrate, Chandausi, District Sambhal
in Complaint Case No. 66 of 2017
(arising out of Case Crime No. 655 of
2016), under Sections 352, 504, 506, 406
I.P.C., Police Station Chandausi, District
Sambhal as well as entire proceedings of
above mentioned case, pending in the
Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial
Magistrate, Chandausi, District Sambhal.

2. Heard learned counsel for
applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and
perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for applicant
argued that it is a malicious prosecution
with false concoction. A case was got
registered, in which final report was
submitted. Thereafter, protest petition was
filed, which was treated as complaint,
wherein complainant was examined under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses
were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, summoning order was passed,
whereas the facts were not constituting
offences,
for
which
applicant
was
summoned.

4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently
opposed the aforesaid prayer.

5. From the perusal of first
information report, lodged as Case Crime
No. 655 of 2016, it is apparent that
complainant Sanjeev Kumar Varshneya
got this case lodged against Aniruddha
Sharma for offence punishable under
Sections 352, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. This
was
investigated
and
resulted
in
submission of final report. Notice was
issued to complainant, who appeared and
filed protest petition. Trial court treated it
as
complaint
case.
Thereafter,
complainant was examined under Section
200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses were
examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, summoning order was passed,
against which this proceeding has been
filed. The very contention of protest
petition
has
been
reiterated
by
complainant in his statement recorded
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. This has
further been corroborated by testimony of
PW-2 and PW-3 examined under Section
202 Cr.P.C. Trial court on the basis of
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
above
evidence
passed
impugned
summoning order.

6. This Court in exercise of inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
not expected to appreciate and analise
factual aspect of case because the same is
a question of evidence before trial Court.
Whatever is there on record is the basis of
summoning of Aniruddha Sharma for
offence punishable under Sections 352,
504, 506, 406 I.P.C.

7. Saving of inherent power of High
Court, as given under Section 482 Cr.P.C,
provides that nothing in this Code shall be
deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect
to any order under this Code, or to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Meaning thereby this inherent power is
with High Court (I) to make such order as
may be necessary to give effect to any
other order under this Code (II) to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court (III) or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
But Apex Court in State of Andhra
Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT
2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767:
2010 Cr. LJ 3844 has propounded that
"While
exercising
jurisdiction
under
section 482 of the Code, the High Court
would not ordinarily embark upon an
enquiry whether the evidence in question
is reliable or not or whether on a
reasonable apprehension of it accusation
would not be sustained. That is the
function of the trial Judge/Court". In
another subsequent Hamida v. Rashid,
(2008) 1 SCC 474, hon'ble Apex Court
propounded that "Ends of justice would
be better served if valuable time of the
Court is spent in hearing those appeals
rather than entertaining petitions under
Section 482 at an interlocutory stage
which after filed with some oblique
motive in order to circumvent the
prescribed procedure, or to delay the trial
which enable to win over the witness or
may disinterested in giving evidence,
ultimately resulting in miscarriage of
Justice". In again another subsequent
Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781, the Apex
Court
has
propounded
"Inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with
caution and only when such exercise is
justified by the tests specifically laid
down in the section itself." While
interpreting this jurisdiction of High
Court Apex Court in Popular Muthiah v.
State, Represented by Inspector of
Police,
(2006)
7
SCC
296
has
propounded "High Court can exercise
jurisdiction suo motu in the interest of
justice. It can do so while exercising other
jurisdictions
such
as
appellate
or
revisional
jurisdiction.
No
formal
application
for
invoking
inherent
jurisdiction
is
necessary.
Inherent
jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of
substantive as well as procedural matters.
It can as well be exercised in respect of
incidental
or
supplemental
power
irrespective of nature of proceedings".

8. Regarding prevention of abuse of
process
of
Court,
Apex
Court
in
Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar,
(1990) Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC
494 has propounded "To prevent abuse of
the process of the Court, High Court in
exercise of its inherent powers under
section 482 could quash the proceedings
but there would be justification for
interference only when the complaint did
not disclose any offence or was frivolous
3 All. Smt. Shipra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
139
vexatious or oppressive" as well as in
State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan,
(1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1,
Apex Court propounded "In exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 High
Court would not embark upon an enquiry
whether the allegations in the complaint
are likely to be established by evidence or
not".

9. Meaning thereby, exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded
as above.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, there seems to be no
ground for interfering in the aforesaid
case.

11. The application is accordingly
rejected.
----------
(2019)11ILR A139

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM , J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 32683 of 2019
(u/s 482 Cr.P.C.)

Smt. Shipra Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the .Applicant :
Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Sandeep Mishra.

A. Criminal Law -Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, Section 482 - Malicious
prosecution
-
Applicants
claim
-
complaint filed by way of a counterblast
- Previous institution of another case
may be evidence of motive or cause the
act
complained
either
by
way
of
commission of offence or in self-defence,
by either side. It would be a question of
fact to be decided on the strength of
evidence to be led at the trial court.

Here the summoning order was passed on the
basis of statements recorded under Sections
200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The High Court, in
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C., is not to analyse the factual aspect
because the same is to be seen by the Trial
Court. (Para 6,7,10)

Application u/s 482 dismissed (E-3)

List of cases cited: -

1. St. of A.P Vs Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT (2010)
(6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ
3844

2. Hamida Vs Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474,

3. Monica Kumar Vs St. of U.P, (2008) 8 SCC
781

4. Popular Muthiah Vs St., Rep. by Insp. of
Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296

5. Dhanlakshmi Vs R.Prasana Kumar, (1990)
Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494

6. St. of Bih. Vs Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ
1005: AIR (1989) SC 1
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J. )

1. Heard learned counsel for
applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

2. This application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.
has been filed seeking quashing of the
entire proceeding including summoning
order dated 17.06.2019 in Complaint
Case No. 333 of 2019, under Sections
323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station