# Ankit Prasad & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 368 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-09-21 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 11176 of 2020 - **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ankit-prasad-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45246 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973-Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,1862-Sections 323, 452, 504, 506-quashing of-summoning orderstatements of complainant and witnesses corroborated the contention with regard to criminal trespass-At the time of summoning, the Magistrate is not to make analytical analysis of evidence-only a prima facie case for proceeding further is there or not is to be seen-one witness was not examined, is of no relevance -the complainant and injured have been examined-magistrate is not required to examine each and every witness at the juncture of summoning. (Para 5) B. The court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC, is not expected to meticulously analyse the facts and evidence as it is within the domain of trial court. (Para 6) The application is dismissed. (E-6) List of Cases Cited:- ## Text 368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES appropriate proceeding before the Revenue Court is necessary. Neither the damage can be imposed for alleged 'Mischief' by taking criminal action under Section 2/3 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 nor any offence of 'criminal trespass' under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have been prima facie made out against the applicants herein. The criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants pursuant to the F.I.R. namely Case Crime No. 0850 of 2017, Police Station Banda, District Shahjahanpur cannot but be said to be an abuse of the process of law or the Court. The cognizance order dated 14.10.2019 in Criminal Case No. 2418 of 2019 (State vs. Kastoori Singh and others) has been passed in complete ignorance of law. The continuation of criminal proceedings, in the considered opinion of the Court, being an abuse of process of the Court, ends of the justice requires that the said proceedings be quashed. 19. Invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the High Court, the entire criminal proceedings of Case Crime No. 850 of 2017, Police Station Banda, District Shahjahanpur is hereby quashed. The application stands allowed. ---------- (2020)10ILR A368 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J. Application U/S 482 No. 11176 of 2020 Ankit Prasad & Anr. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Applicants: Sri Alok Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A., Sri Jawahir Yadav A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973-Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,1862-Sections 323, 452, 504, 506-quashing of-summoning orderstatements of complainant and witnesses corroborated the contention with regard to criminal trespass-At the time of summoning, the Magistrate is not to make analytical analysis of evidence-only a prima facie case for proceeding further is there or not is to be seen-one witness was not examined, is of no relevance -the complainant and injured have been examined-magistrate is not required to examine each and every witness at the juncture of summoning. (Para 5) B. The court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC, is not expected to meticulously analyse the facts and evidence as it is within the domain of trial court. (Para 6) The application is dismissed. (E-6) 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.,Rept. By Inspector 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 7. Amrawati & Anr. Vs St. Of U.P.,(2004) 57 ALR 290 10 All. Ankit Prasad & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 369 8. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs St. Of U.P.,(2009) 3 ADJ 322 SC (Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. representing the State. Perused the records. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants Ankit Prasad and Shashi Bala against State of U.P. and Amita Jagdamba Prasad with prayer to quash summoning order dated 29.4.2019 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)-5/ Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, in Complaint Case No. 768 of 2019, Amita Jagdamba Prasad Vs. Ankit Prasad and another, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Shahibabad, district Ghaziabad, pending in court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)-5/ Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants are family members of complainant-O.P. No. 2. In the statement recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. it has been specifically said to be an occurrence of 9.4.2018 as well as of 11.4.2018. The alleged assault said to be given to injured Sumeru Chakraborty is not in consonance with report. The offence u/s 452 I.P.C. is not made out because it has been admitted by complainant that the disputed house belongs to both sides. Civil Suit with regard to above disputed Flat is pending and this proceeding is with a view to create pressure and is an abuse of process of law. Hence this application with above prayer. 4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for complainant have vehemently opposed the above argument with this contention that the complainant, who is an unmarried daughter of her father Jgdamba Prasad, is residing in the Flat owned by Jagdamba Prasad. Accused Ankit Prasad by making false statement by way of an affidavit in the office of electricity department mentioned himself to be the sole successor of Late Jagdamba Prasad. It was a misstatement under fraudulent intention. The accused-applicants are trying to evict the complainant for which they made assault on 11.4.2018 when Sumeru Chakraborty tried to intervene, he too was badly beaten. There is medical report of Sumeru Chakraborty. The complainant in her statement recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. the contention of complaint has been corroborated. Hence this application be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both parties and gone through material placed on record, it is apparent that a complaint was filed by complainant Amita Jagdamba Prasad against Ankit Prasad and Shashi Bala in the Court of C.J.M., Ghaziabad, for offences punishable u/s 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 387, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, by way of an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was treated to be a complaint, wherein statements of complainant Amita Jagdamba Prasad was recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and of her witnesses were also got recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. The contention made in complaint with regard to criminal trespass on the alleged date of occurrence and thereafter making assault has been corroborated by complainant as well as her witnesses and on the basis of this enquiry made by Magistrate, impugned summoning order dated 29.4.2019 has been passed, wherein the applicants have been summoned for the offences punishable u/s 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. At the time of summoning u/s 204 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate 370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES is not to make analytical analysis of evidence. Rather only a prima facie case for proceeding further is there or not is to be seen. It is very well there because the contention of complaint was corroborated in the statements recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. made under enquiry by the Magistrate. It is said that on 11.4.2018 Patwari Shahzad had come at the spot for investigation when those accused persons along with 3-4 others did criminal trespass, made assault and abused the complainant. For this occurrence, the complaint was made and the complainant and her witnesses were examined. They have corroborated the contention of complaint. The very argument that this Patwari Shahzad was not examined, is of no relevance because the complainant and injured have been examined and they have corroborated the contention of complaint. At the juncture of summoning, the Magistrate is not required to examine each and every witness mentioned in the complaint. 6. This court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not expected to meticulously analyse the facts and evidence as it is within the domain of trial court. 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 10 All. Narayan Giri Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 371 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 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. Accordingly, there remains nothing for any indulgence in this proceeding. The prayer for quashing summoning order as well as proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case is refused and the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. 11. However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within thirty days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 12. For a period of thirty days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. 13. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. ---------- (2020)10ILR A371 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.09.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J. Application U/S 482 No. 12058 of 2020 Narayan Giri ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Sher Bahadur Yadav Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. A. Criminal law - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,1862-Sections 323, 504, 506, 419, 420, 406-quashing of-entire proceeding- Husband of the complainant was duped by committing fraud by the accused persons- contention of the complaint stood corroborated by the witnesses examined and complainant statement disclosing connivance of all the accused.(Para 6)