# Barsati & Ors v. The State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1088
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-09-02
- **Case number:** U/S 482/378/407 No. 4246 of 2015
- **Bench:** Aditya Nath Mittal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/barsati-ors-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-43358
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Cr.P.C. Section 482-Quashing of Criminal
Proceeding-offence
under
section
323/504/506/308 IPC -when such power
can be exercised explained-from perusal of
record-cognizable offence made out-no
interference called for-with direction of
expeditious disposal application-disposed
of.
Held: Para-7
However, in this matter, after investigation,
Police has found a prima facie case against
accused and submitted charge-sheet in the
Court below. After investigation the police
has found a prima facie case of commission
of a cognizable offence by accused which
should have tried in a Court of Law. At this
stage there is no occasion to look into the
question, whether the charge ultimately
can be substantiated or not since that
would be a subject matter of trial. No
substantial ground has been made out
which may justify interference by this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Case Law discussed:
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; (2006) 7 SCC 296;
(2008) 1 SCC 474; (2008) 8 SCC 781; (2009) 9
SCC 682; JT 2010 (6) SC 588; 2011 (1) SCC
74; JT 2012 (2) SC 237.

## Text

1088
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court, except for contending that the
petitioner had taken loan from U.P. F.C.,
which is only extended by U.P.F.C. to an
undertaking engaged in manufacturing, no
evidence could be produced to prove that
there had been any registration with the
Industries department or any manufacturing
activity was being done from the demised
premises. In such view of the matter, this
Court does not find any reason to interfere
with the concurrent findings of fact recorded
by the courts below to the effect that the
demised premises was not being used for
manufacturing purposes.
29. No other submission was made
by learned counsel for the petitioner.
30. The order passed by the revisional
court rejecting the review application was not
subjected to attack at the time of hearing.
31.
In view of the foregoing
discussion, both the petitions are devoid of
merit and are dismissed. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.09.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ADITYA NATH MITTAL, J.
U/S 482/378/407 No. 4246 of 2015
Barsati & Ors.
 ...Applicant
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr.
...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Applicant:
Amarnath Dubey
Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Govt. Advocate
Cr.P.C. Section 482-Quashing of Criminal
Proceeding-offence
under
section
323/504/506/308 IPC -when such power
can be exercised explained-from perusal of
record-cognizable offence made out-no
interference called for-with direction of
expeditious disposal application-disposed
of.
Held: Para-7
However, in this matter, after investigation,
Police has found a prima facie case against
accused and submitted charge-sheet in the
Court below. After investigation the police
has found a prima facie case of commission
of a cognizable offence by accused which
should have tried in a Court of Law. At this
stage there is no occasion to look into the
question, whether the charge ultimately
can be substantiated or not since that
would be a subject matter of trial. No
substantial ground has been made out
which may justify interference by this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Case Law discussed:
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; (2006) 7 SCC 296;
(2008) 1 SCC 474; (2008) 8 SCC 781; (2009) 9
SCC 682; JT 2010 (6) SC 588; 2011 (1) SCC
74; JT 2012 (2) SC 237.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Aditya Nath Mittal, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned AGA and perused the
record.
2. This petition has been filed with the
prayer to quash the criminal proceeding of
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1319 of
2015, Case Crime No.306 of 2014, under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. Police
Station-
Aaspur
Devsara,
District
Pratapgarh as well as the charge-sheet
No.172 of 2014 dated 30.12.2014.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has submitted that the First Information
Report has been lodged on the basis of false
and fabricated story against the petitioners
and the petitioners have falsely been
3 All]
Barsati & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
1089
implicated in this case. Lastly, learned
counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that petitioners are ready to surrender before
the court below and some protection may be
granted to them.
4. Learned Additional Government
Advocate has opposed the petition.
5.
The power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine
manner, but it is for limited purposes,
namely, to give effect to any order under the
Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any
Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
Time and again, Apex Court and various
High Courts, including ours one, have
reminded when exercise of power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified,
which cannot be placed in straight jacket
formula, but one thing is very clear that it
should not preampt a trial and cannot be used
in a routine manner so as to cut short the
entire process of trial before the Courts
below. If from a bare perusal of first
information report or complaint, it is evident
that it does not disclose any offence at all or
it is frivolous, collusive or oppressive from
the face of it, the Court may exercise its
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
but it should be exercised sparingly. This will
not include as to whether prosecution is
likely to establish its case or not, whether the
evidence in question is reliable or not or
whether on a reasonable appreciation of it,
accusation would not be sustained, or the
other circumstances, which would not justify
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. I need not go into various aspects in
detail but it would be suffice to refer a few
recent authorities dealing all these matters in
detail, namely, State of Haryana and others
Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335, Popular Muthiah Vs. State
represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 7
SCC 296, Hamida vs. Rashid @ Rasheed
and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 474, Dr. Monica
Kumar and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
(2008) 8 SCC 781, M.N. Ojha and Ors. Vs.
Alok Kumar Srivastav and Anr. (2009) 9
SCC 682, State of A.P. vs. Gourishetty
Mahesh and Ors. JT 2010 (6) SC 588 and
Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola
Incorporated and Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 74.
6. In Lee Kun Hee and others Vs. State
of U.P. and others JT 2012 (2) SC 237, it
was reiterated that Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot
go into the truth or otherwise of the
allegations and appreciate evidence, if any,
available on record. Interference would be
justified only when a clear case of such
interference is made out. Frequent and
uncalled interference even at the preliminary
stage by High Court may result in causing
obstruction in the progress of inquiry in a
criminal case which may not be in public
interest. It, however, may not be doubted, if
on the face of it, either from the first
information report or complaint, it is evident
that allegation are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no fairminded and informed observer can ever
reach a just and proper conclusion as to the
existence
of
sufficient
grounds
for
proceeding, in such cases refusal to exercise
jurisdiction may equally result in injustice,
more particularly, in cases, where the
complainant sets the criminal law in motion
with a view to exert pressure and harass the
persons arrayed as accused in the complaint.
7.
However, in this matter, after
investigation, Police has found a prima facie
case against accused and submitted chargesheet in the Court below. After investigation
the police has found a prima facie case of
commission of a cognizable offence by
accused which should have tried in a Court
1090
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Law. At this stage there is no occasion to
look into the question, whether the charge
ultimately can be substantiated or not since
that would be a subject matter of trial. No
substantial ground has been made out which
may justify interference by this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8.
From perusal of the record, it
cannot be said that the cognizable offence
is not made out against the petitioner. I do
not find any sufficient ground to quash the
charge-sheet as well as the proceedings of
the aforesaid criminal case.
9. However, it is provided that if the
petitioners Barsati, Judawan, Shyam Lal
Harijan and Babu Lal appear or surrender
before the court below within two weeks
from today and moves an application for
bail, the same shall be considered and
disposed of expeditiously in accordance
with law. Till then no coercive steps shall
be taken against the petitioners.
10. With the above observations, the
petition is disposed of.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 5171 of 2015
(Matters under Article 227)
Chandrabali Yadav
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Nand Bahadur & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajeshwar Yadav, Sri Vijay Bahadur
Yadav
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav
C.P.C.-Order
I
Rule
10-Impleadment
application-suit for permanent prohibitory
injunction-petitioner claimed impleadment
as in PIL-same direction has been issued at
his instance-land in question being Bheeta
certainly Gaon Sabha is necessary partyallowed
by
Trail
Court-set-a-side
by
Revisional Court-held-proper.
Held: Para-14
The
suit
in
question
is
not
a
representative suit. Although, indirectly,
the decision therein may affect the
whole village community, but it does not
mean that any member of the public can
seek his impleadment therein. If this is
permitted, there may be several public
spirited citizens coming forth, seeking
their impleadment. The process would go
on ad infinitum, making it impossible for
the suit to proceed. Concededly, the
petitioner has no personal interest in the
matter. In such view of the matter, this
Court is in full agreement with the view
taken by the revisional court in holding
that the petitioner is not required to be
impleaded in the suit.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 2011 SC 1123; 2012 (11) ADJ 404; [2001
(6) SCC 496]; [2015 (109) ALR 680]
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.)
1.
The petitioner has assailed the
validity of the order dated 19.8.2015 passed
by Additional District Judge/Special Judge,
EC Act, Jaunpur in Civil Revision No. 176
of 2013, whereby the revision has been
allowed and the order of the trial court dated
4.9.2013 permitting impleadment of the
petitioner as a party defendant in Original
Suit No. 168 of 2008, has been set aside.
2. The plaintiff-respondents have
instituted Original Suit No. 168 of 2008
against the the defendant-respondents for