# Bhallu @ Hari Narayan & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 675
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-12
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 43786 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhallu-hari-narayan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45261
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Code of Criminal Procedure- Section
204-
Summoning
order-
Section
482
-
Statements made in application u/s 155(2) of
Cr.P.C., was having recital of facts and
reiterated in the statement recorded u/s 200 of
Cr.P.C.-Corroborated by witnesses in enquiry
u/s 202 of Cr.P.C.-Impugned summoning order
was passed on the basis of evidence collected
by the Magistrate in his enquiry- Under Section
204 of Cr.P.C. Magistrate is not expected to
make analytic analysis of evidences-Only to be
seen as to whether there is existence of a
prima facie case or not on the basis of enquiry
and complaint - High Court in exercise of
inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is
not expected to make meticulous analysis of
factual aspects because the same is a question
to be gone into during course of trial by the
Trial court. (Para 6 & 7)

Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C
rejected. (E-3)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. Bhallu @ Hari Narayan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
675
decisions has held that public servant is
not entitled to indulge in criminal activities
and in such case sanction under section
197 is not required and to that extent
Section 197 has been construed narrowly
and in a restricted manner and it further
observe that some times certain questions
about requirement of sanction under
section 197 Cr.P.C cannot be decided
without evidence. Such questions like
good faith or bad faith of public servant
can be decided on conclusion of trial. In
the present case also it would be expedient
in the interest of justice that the trial court
is at liberty to prima facie proceed as per
prosecution version and the applicant be
given opportunity to adduce evidence in
his support and if at later stage it comes to
the notice of the Court that there was
reasonable nexus of incident and discharge
of official duty, the Court shall re-examine
the issue of sanction and take decision as
per law. The said issue of sanction can be
taken from stage to stage and even at the
conclusion of the trial at the time of
judgment.

13. In view of the above settled
principle of law as has been referred
above, I do not find any infirmity or
illegality in the order taking cognizance,
the prayer for quashing the impugned
order as well as the entire proceedings
based on the charge-sheet is refused.

14. The present 482 Cr.P.C.
application lacks merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2020)1 ILR 675

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 43786 of 2019

Bhallu @ Hari Narayan & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Devesh Kumar

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

A. Code of Criminal Procedure- Section
204-
Summoning
order-
Section
482
-
Statements made in application u/s 155(2) of
Cr.P.C., was having recital of facts and
reiterated in the statement recorded u/s 200 of
Cr.P.C.-Corroborated by witnesses in enquiry
u/s 202 of Cr.P.C.-Impugned summoning order
was passed on the basis of evidence collected
by the Magistrate in his enquiry- Under Section
204 of Cr.P.C. Magistrate is not expected to
make analytic analysis of evidences-Only to be
seen as to whether there is existence of a
prima facie case or not on the basis of enquiry
and complaint - High Court in exercise of
inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is
not expected to make meticulous analysis of
factual aspects because the same is a question
to be gone into during course of trial by the
Trial court. (Para 6 & 7)

Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C
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. State, Rep. by Insp. of
Police, (2006) 7 SCC 29

5. Dhanlakshmi Vs. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990)
Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494
676 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. Supplementary affidavit, filed,
today, by learned counsel for applicants, is
taken on record.

2. This Application, under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
has been filed by the Applicants, Bhallu @
Hari Narayan and three others, with a
prayer
for
setting
aside
impugned
summoning order, dated 27.4.2019, passed
by court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhadohi, at Gyanpur, in
Criminal Complaint Case No.960 of 2016,
Rakesh Kumar Yadav, vs. Bhallu @ Hari
Narayan and others, under Sections-323,
504, 506, 452 and 427 of IPC, Police
Station-Gyanpur at Bhadohi.

3. Learned counsel for applicants
argued that initially a Non-Cognizable
Report
was
filed.
Thereafter,
an
Application, under Section 155(2) of
Cr.P.C., was filed for a direction for
investigation of above NCR case. It was
treated as a complaint case and therein, a
summoning order was passed, which was
challenged in revision before the Sessions
Judge and it was allowed. The matter was
remanded
back.
Subsequently,
after
hearing, summoning order has been passed
by the Magistrate, again, for offences,
punishable, under Sections 323, 504, 506,
452 and 427 of IPC, which is in misuse of
process of law. Accused persons are
uncles and family members of the
complainant. There is a dispute regarding
demarcation of land in between them and
this false case was got lodged. There is
material contradiction in the statement
made and the contentions in NonCognizable Report. Hence, for avoiding
abuse of process of law and for ensuring
ends of justice, this Application, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed,
with above prayer.

4. Learned AGA, representing State
of U.P., has vehemently opposed this
Application.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
both sides and gone through materials on
record, it is apparent that an occurrence
occurred for which a Non-Cognizable
Report was instantly got lodged. It was
very well known. Subsequently, it was
said that the same was not recorded as per
statements, made before the Police, then,
application, under Section 155(2) of
Cr.P.C. was moved for a direction for
investigation. Magistrate, in a case of NonCognizable Report, even after submission
of chargesheet, has to take recourse of
complaint
case
because
the
same
chargesheet, which is for non-cognizable
offence, is to be treated as a complaint
case. Hence, this was said to be malicious
prosecution and, accordingly, a prayer was
made for setting aside it.

6. Statements, made in application,
moved under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.,
was having recital of facts, as was said,
and reiterated in the statement, recorded,
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., which stood
corroborated, by statements of witnesses,
in the enquiry, made by the Magistrate,
under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and as such
impugned summoning order was passed
on the basis of evidence, collected by the
Magistrate, in his enquiry. Hence, at that
juncture of summoning, under Section 204
of Cr.P.C., Magistrate, was not expected to
make analytic analysis of evidences,
1 All. Bhallu @ Hari Narayan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
677
rather, it is to be seen that as to whether
there is existence of a prima facie case or
not on the basis of enquiry and complaint,
which, in present case, was very well
there. Hence, impugned summoning order
was passed, in accordance with the
provisions of law.

7. Hence, under all above facts and
circumstances, this Court, in exercise of
inherent power, under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.,
is
not
expected
to
make
meticulous analysis of factual aspects
because the same is a question, to be gone
into, during course of trial, by the Trial
court.

8. 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 judgment, in the case
of 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 yet
another judgment, in the case of 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 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".

10. Meaning thereby, exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
678 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as
above.

11. 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)1ILR 678

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA MISHRA, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 44378 of 2019

Nahar Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Vipin Chandra Pandey

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

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482-In exercise of inherent power, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., High Court is not
expected to make a meticulous analysis
of factual aspect because the same is a
question to be gone into, during course of
trial, by the Trial court. (Para 5)

Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C
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. State, 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. This Application, under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
has been filed by the Applicants, Nahar
Singh, Manmohan @ Teetu, Deepu @
Devendra and Manoj, with a prayer for
setting aside summoning order, dated
19.9.2019,
passed
by
the
Judicial
Magistrate,
Sadabad,
Hathras,
and,
thereby, entire criminal proceeding, in
Complaint Case No. 164 of 2018, Shashi
Prabha vs. Nahar Singh and others, under
Sections-452, 323 and 354 of IPC, Police
Station-Sahpau, District-Hathras

2. Learned counsel for applicants
argued that a civil suit was filed for
cancellation of sale deed, which was got
executed by the complainant and as a
result
of
the
same
this
malicious
prosecution, in misuse of process of law,
wherein, there is no medico legal report of
any injury, but, even this, summoning
order has been passed. Hence, for avoiding
abuse of process of law, this Application,
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been
filed, with above prayer.

3. Learned AGA, representing State
of U.P., has vehemently opposed this
Application.

4. From perusal of the complaint, it
is apparent that the reason for lodging this
complaint has been said in it, i.e., alleged