# Brajesh Kumar Yadav & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 144
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No.37372 of 2019
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brajesh-kumar-yadav-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44765
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law -Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, Section 482 - Scope - Where the
summoning order is passed on the basis of
evidence obtained under Sections 200 and
202
Cr.P.C.
there
was
prima-facie
sufficient evidence to pass summoning
order. No scope for the High Court to
analyse meticulously the evidence placed
on record. It is the jurisdiction and domain
of trial court.

The statement of complainant recorded u/s
200 Cr.P.C. is in full reiteration of the contents
of the complaint. The same is corroborated by
the statements recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. From
very perusal of those statements, prima-facie
sufficient evidence exists to pass summoning
order, as above.

B.
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
1973,
Section 482 - Ground for interference -
Previous complaint - against fair price shop
dealer may be a motive for either side. This
court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction u/s
482 Cr.P.C. is not to analyse meticulously the
evidence placed on record. Rather that is
jurisdiction and domain of trial court.

C. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section
482 - Ground for interference - malicious
complain/counterblast-Previous institution of case
may be a motive for either side which is a
question of evidence and of fact to be seen in trial
court. No ground to interfere.

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

## Text

144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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".

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. Hence, under above facts and
circumstances, there is no ground for this
application.

10. Accordingly, the application is
rejected.

11. However, in case the applicants
surrender
before
before
the
court
concerned within 30 days from today and
apply for bail, it will decide their bail
application in wake of the law laid down
by this Court in the Full Bench decision
of Amrawati and another Vs. State of
U.P., 2005 Cri.L.J 755 affirmed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of
U.P. (2009) 4 SCC 437.

12. For a period of 30 days from
today, which shall not be extended further
in any case, no coercive action shall be
taken against the applicants, in the above
mentioned case.
----------

(2019)11ILR A145

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.10.2019
3 All. Brajesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
145
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM , J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.37372 of 2019
u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Brajesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.....Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Harish Chandra Mishra.

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

A. Criminal Law -Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, Section 482 - Scope - Where the
summoning order is passed on the basis of
evidence obtained under Sections 200 and
202
Cr.P.C.
there
was
prima-facie
sufficient evidence to pass summoning
order. No scope for the High Court to
analyse meticulously the evidence placed
on record. It is the jurisdiction and domain
of trial court.

The statement of complainant recorded u/s
200 Cr.P.C. is in full reiteration of the contents
of the complaint. The same is corroborated by
the statements recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. From
very perusal of those statements, prima-facie
sufficient evidence exists to pass summoning
order, as above.

B.
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
1973,
Section 482 - Ground for interference -
Previous complaint - against fair price shop
dealer may be a motive for either side. This
court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction u/s
482 Cr.P.C. is not to analyse meticulously the
evidence placed on record. Rather that is
jurisdiction and domain of trial court.

C. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section
482 - Ground for interference - malicious
complain/counterblast-Previous institution of case
may be a motive for either side which is a
question of evidence and of fact to be seen in trial
court. No ground to interfere.

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. rejected. (E-3)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J. )

1. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants
Brajesh Kumar Yadav, son of Sarnam
Singh Yadav, Sarnam Singh, son of
Sarman Yadav and Deepchandra, son of
Asha Ram, against State of U.P. and
Shambhu Dayal with prayer for quashing
entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.
59 of 2017, under Sections 392, 452, 504,
506 I.P.C., P.S. Punchh, district Jhansi,
pending in court of Special Judge (D.A.A.
Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi,
as well as summoning order dated
2.8.2019 passed in above mentioned
complaint case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned A.G.A. for the
State. Perused the records.

3. Learned counsel for applicants
argued that a complaint was made against
fair price shop run by complainant- O.P.
No. 2, wherein Sub Divisional Magistrate
suspended fair price shop of O.P. No. 2.
Though, subsequently it was revived and
owing to above enmity this false
accusation
was
got
lodged
against
applicants, which was with no truth and
learned Trial Judge had summoned
applicants for offences, as above. It was
mere counter blast by complainant. Hence
misuse of process of court. Application be
allowed and prayed relief be granted.

4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently
opposed the application.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
both sides and gone through impugned
order as well as material placed on record,
it is apparent that a complaint was filed
146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by Shambhu Dayal before court of
Special Judge (D.A.A. Act)/ Additional
Sessions Judge, Jhansi, as Complaint
Case No. 59 of 2017 against Brijesh
Kumar
Yadav,
Sarnam
Singh
and
Deepchandra, for offences punishable u/s
392, 393, 387, 432, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.
Punchh,
District
Jhansi,
with
this
contention that complainant Shambhu
Dayal is a fair price shop dealer at village
Khilli. Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Sarnam
Singh and Deepchandra are bullies of
society. They have created terror there at,
but no one dare to complain against them.
They very often lodge complaint against
fair price shop dealer, which were found
to be false. On 8.8.2017 at 1.30 P.M.
when complainant was busy with his
business at his fair price shop, those
accused Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Sarnam
Singh and Deepchandra came there. They
did criminal trespass in the shop and
asked for two bags of rice and 50 liters of
Kerosene oil. This demand could not be
fulfilled without ration card and entry of
it in the register. They did assault with
complainant and abused with derogative
language. They abused him by the name
of his caste and extended threat of dire
consequences and robbed Rs.10,000/-
with other Rs.1000/- lying at counter.
Persons of Mohalla Rajesh, Santram,
Lakshmi, Sushil etc. came there and
intervened then the accused persons ran
from the spot while extending threat of
dire consequences. Matter was tried to be
lodged at police station, but they
compelled
the
complainant
to
compromise
and
ultimately
it
was
reported to the S.S.P., Jhansi, but was of
no avail. Then this complaint was filed,
wherein statement of complainant u/s 200
Cr.P.C. and of his witnesses Santram and
Lakshmi Prasad were recorded u/s 202
Cr.P.C. The trial court after hearing
learned counsel for complainant passed
impugned summoning order, wherein
applicants Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Sarnam
Singh and Deep Chandra were summoned
to face trial for offences punishable u/s
392, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. vide order dated
2.8.2019. The statement of complainant
recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. is in full
reiteration with contention of complaint.
The same is with corroboration by
statements recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and
from very perusal of those statements,
there was prima-facie sufficient evidence
to pass summoning order, as above.
Accordingly, impugned summoning order
has been passed. Previous complaint
against fair price shop dealer may be a
motive for either side, but this court in
exercise of inherent jurisdiction u/s 482
Cr.P.C. is not to analyse meticulously the
evidence placed on record. Rather that is
jurisdiction and domain of trial court.

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
3 All. Brajesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
147
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".

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. Hence, under above facts and
circumstances, there is no ground for this
application.

10. Accordingly, the application is
rejected.

11. However, in case the applicants
surrender
before
before
the
court
concerned within 30 days from today and
apply for bail, it will decide their bail
application in wake of the law laid down
by this Court in the Full Bench decision
of Amrawati and another Vs. State of
U.P., 2005 Cri.L.J 755 affirmed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal
Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of
U.P. (2009) 4 SCC 437.

12. For a period of 30 days from
today, which shall not be extended further
in any case, no coercive action shall be
taken against the applicants, in the above
mentioned case.
----------
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2019)11ILR A148

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM , J.

Criminal Misc. Application\ No. 37400 of 2019
u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Dr. Jaipal Gupta ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Sri Vikrant
Pandey

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

A. Criminal Law -Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) -
Second/subsequent
application
-
maintainability. Dismissal of previous
application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for want
of prosecution - Not a bar for Second
application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved
with same contention.

B. Criminal Law -Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) -
Ground - variance in allegations in two
applications
filed
by
the
same
complainant for the same occurrence -
It is a question of fact to be seen at the
trial. It was not within jurisdiction of
revisional court or this court in exercise
of its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482
Cr.P.C. to meticulously examine the
facts. From the contention made in
complaint, there is sufficient accusation
for offences on basis of which the
applicant has been summoned. (Para 5,8)

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

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, AIR
(1990) SC 494

6. St. of Bih. Vs Murad Ali Khan, AIR (1989) SC 1

7. Amrawati & anr. Vs St. of U.P., (2005)
Cri.L.J 755

8. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs St. of U.P.
(2009) 4 SCC 437

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J. )

1. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant
Dr. Jaipal Gupta @ Jai Prakash Gupta
against State of U.P. and Dr. Pankaj
Sharma with prayer to quash order dated
7.9.2019 passed by Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Meerut, in
revision and the summoning order dated
30.4.2016 passed by A.C.J.M.-V, Meerut,
as
well
as
entire
proceedings
of
Complaint Case No. 414 of 2016, Dr.
Pankaj Sharma Vs. Dr. J. P. Gupta, under
Sections 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., pending in
court of A.C.J.M.-V, Meerut.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned A.G.A. representing
the State. Perused the records.

3. Learned counsel for applicant
argued that for the same occurrence an
application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed
by complainant and the same was