# Balvir Singh @ Shintu Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 374
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-08-31
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 12648 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/balvir-singh-shintu-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45250
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 & U.P.
Gangster
and
Anti
Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act,1986-Section
3(1)-
quashing of- entire proceeding-trial court
rejected
discharge
application-accused
had criminal antecedent-acquittal in any
criminal case does not delete criminal
antecedent-merit is to be appreciated on
the basis of evidence within the domain of
trial
court-
Factual
correctness
or
incorrectness or appreciation of same
cannot be made, under Section 482, in
exercise of inherent power-Meticulous
analysis of facts and evidence at the time
of framing of charges may lead prejudice
against fair trial.(Para 5 to 7)
B. 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. To
prevent abuse of the process of the Court,
10 All. Balvir Singh @ Shintu Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
375
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.(Para 6,7)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
the case of 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".

9. Regarding prevention of abuse of
process of Court, Apex Court, in the case
of 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 the
case of 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".Meaning
thereby,
exercise
of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded
as above.

10. In view of what has been
discussed above, this Application, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., merits dismissal
and it stands dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2020)10ILR A374
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 12648 of 2020

Balvir Singh @ Shintu Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Kamal Kishor Mishra

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

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 & U.P.
Gangster
and
Anti
Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act,1986-Section
3(1)-
quashing of- entire proceeding-trial court
rejected
discharge
application-accused
had criminal antecedent-acquittal in any
criminal case does not delete criminal
antecedent-merit is to be appreciated on
the basis of evidence within the domain of
trial
court-
Factual
correctness
or
incorrectness or appreciation of same
cannot be made, under Section 482, in
exercise of inherent power-Meticulous
analysis of facts and evidence at the time
of framing of charges may lead prejudice
against fair trial.(Para 5 to 7)
B. 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. To
prevent abuse of the process of the Court,
10 All. Balvir Singh @ Shintu Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
375
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.(Para 6,7)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. Palwinder Singh Vs Balwinder Singh &
ors,(2008) 14 SCC 504

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

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

4. Monica Kumar Vs St. Of U.P.,(2008) 8 SCC 781

5. Popular Muthiah Vs St.,Rept. By Inspector of
Police,(2006) 7 SCC 296

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

7. 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 the
applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. 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 entire
proceeding against the applicant in Session
Trial No. 132 of 2009 (State Versus Pintu
Singh and another), arising out of Case
Crime No. 263 of 2009, under Section 3(1)
U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station
Cant. District Gorakhpur, pending in the
court of learned Additional Session Judge /
Special Judge, Gangster Act, Gorakhpur as
well as impugned order dated 05.03.2020.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
argued that accused applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case crime
number, whereas in criminal antecedent
given against him at serial nos. 1 and 3, he
has been acquitted by the trial court. Case
no. 2 is a counter blast of the first
information report got lodged by applicant.
Case no. 4 is the case, in which applicant is
informant. On this gang chart, he has been
charge sheeted for offence punishable
under Gangster Act. This was raised before
trial court with request for discharge in this
session case, but trial court rejected the
same
vide
impugned
order
dated
05.03.2020. It was an abuse of process of
law. Hence, this application with above
prayer.

4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently
opposed.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
both sides and gone through material
placed on record, it is apparent that
application 26Kha was moved by accused
Balvir Singh @ Shintu, under Sections 227
read with 235 of IPC for discharge in Case
Crime No. 263 of 2009, under Section 3(1)
U.P.
Gangster
Act.
This
was
with
contention that applicant had never been a
member of any gang nor he is concerned of
any gang. He is one amongst two of his
brothers. His elder brother is Brijesh Singh
alias Pintu. No relation amongst them is
there. Both of them are having separate
living. Gang chart prepared by police
station is dated 30.11.2009 and the same
was got approved by the then District
Magistrate. This ensure that proceeding
was a mechanical process. No application
of mind was there. On the basis of above
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
report and its approval, Case Crime No.
263 of 2009 was got registered at police
station on 30.01.2009 at 23.30 P.M. Four
cases were shown against applicant and he
was shown to be involved with Pintu
Singh, in above alleged gang, having his
involvement
in
three
cases,
whereas
applicant was of no criminal antecedent.
Pintu Singh, who is real brother of
applicant, was with inimical terms since
1999. Hence, no question of any gang ever
arisen. His property was illegally attached
under Gangster Act, but the same was got
released by High Court after setting aside
order of District Magistrate, Gorakhpur as
well as Special Judge, Gorakhpur. No
offence under Gangster Act is made out
against applicant. Hence, this application
for discharge was moved. After hearing,
learned Special Judge has rejected the
same. At the time of framing of charge
meticulous analysis of fact and evidence is
not to be made, rather substance of alleged
charge is to be seen, as has been
propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in so
many cases and reported in case of
Palwinder Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh
and others; (2008) 14 Supreme Court
Cases 504. Meticulous analysis of facts and
evidence at the time of framing of charges
may lead prejudice against fair trial. Pretrial acquittal after appreciation of evidence
and fact is also not pleaded. Hence, trial
court
after
appreciating
facts
and
circumstances of present case has rejected
discharge application and thereby directed
for presence of accused for framing of
charge. Acquittal in any criminal case does
not delete criminal antecedent and what is
the merit is to be appreciated on the basis
of evidence. This is within domain of trial
court. The High Court in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction, under Section 482
Cr.P.C is not to analyze factual matrix,
because it may again prejudice fair trial.

6. 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
10 All. Chhitar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
377
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".

7. 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".

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

9. Accordingly, this application merits
its dismissal. Dismissed as such.
----------
(2020)10ILR A377
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 12664 of 2020

Chhitar Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Bala Nath Mishra, Sri Ram Vishal Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
482
&
Indian
Penal Code,1862- Section 406 & U.P.
Regulation of Cold Storage Act,1976Section
25-quashing
of-complaintusurping price money of potato, hired in
the cold storage is a criminal breach of
trust u/s 406 IPC not in the category of
compensation u/s 24 of the Cold Storage
Act,1976-procedure u/s 25 of the Act is
not relevant with the fact of the present
case.(Para 12 to 15)

B. The initial condition precedent for
constituting an offence of criminal breach
of trust is dishonest misappropriation or
conversion to its own uses, and in the
present
case,
the
accusation
is
of
dishonest conversion and sale of potatoes
for its own use, thereby usurping price
money for such is punishable u/s 406 IPC
whereas section 24 of the Act,1976
provides
provision
for
payment
of
compensation caused to hirer, by way of
loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or
non-delivery of the goods stored in his
cold storage. It is limited only to the
negligence, misconduct or default on the
part of such licensee.(Para 6 to 9)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)