# Devendra Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 203
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-19
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr. P.C.) No. 37354 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44933
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
482
-
Complaint Case - Sections 200 and 202.
Perusal of statements recorded under
show that they support the summoning
order. High Court in exercise of its
inherent
jurisdiction,
vested
under
Section 482 of Cr. P.C., would not
interfere, unless there is abuse of
process of law.

Criminal
Application
u/s
482
Cr.Pc
rejected. (E-2)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

4 All. Devendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
203
(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 complain
are likely to be established by evidence or
not".

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

7. In view of what has been
discussed above, there is no ground of any
indulgence to be granted by this Court.
Accordingly,
this Application,
under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves dismissal,
being devoid of merits, and it stands
dismissed accordingly.

8. However, it is directed that if the
applicants appear and surrender before the
court below within 30 days from today
and apply for bail, prayer for bail shall 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 judgement passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322
(SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs.
State of U.P.

9. For a period of 30 days from
today, no coercive action shall be taken
against the applicants. However, in case,
the applicants do not appear before the
Court below, within the aforesaid period,
coercive action shall be taken against
them.
----------

(2019)12 ILR A203

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Crl. Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr. P.C.) No.
37354 of 2019

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Dharmendra Kumar Singh

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

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
482
-
Complaint Case - Sections 200 and 202.
Perusal of statements recorded under
show that they support the summoning
order. High Court in exercise of its
inherent
jurisdiction,
vested
under
Section 482 of Cr. P.C., would not
interfere, unless there is abuse of
process of law.

Criminal
Application
u/s
482
Cr.Pc
rejected. (E-2)

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
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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, (1990)
Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494

6. St. of Bih. v. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ
1005: AIR 1989 SC 1

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

1. This proceeding, under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (In Short 'Cr.P.C.), has been filed by
the applicants, Devendra Singh and three
others, against State of U.P. and Lalta
Prasad, Opposite party no.2, with a prayer
for
setting
aside,
entire
criminal
proceeding of Complaint Case No. 511 of
2018 (Lalta Prasad vs. Devendra Singh
and others), under Sections 406, 323, 504
and 506 of Indian Penal Code, Police
Station
Mau
Darwaja,
District
Farrukhabad, pending before the court of
Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial
Magistrate, City Farrukhabad.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants
argued that the applicants have been
falsely
implicated
and
have
been
summoned for above offences, in above
complaint case, under above Sections of
IPC, whereas, complainant, Lalta Prasad,
was having no Bank Account nor any
means for crediting Rs.50,000/- in the
Account of Devendra Singh nor any
question arises of usurping above amount
by the applicants nor any such offence
ever took place. It was a concocted
complaint wherein summoning order has
been passed. Hence, this proceeding, with
above prayer.

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

4. From very perusal of of the
summoning order, it is apparent that a
complaint was filed by Opposite party
no.2, Lalta Prasad, against applicants with
a contention that complainant's son has
deposited Rs.50,000/-, in the Account of
Devendra Singh and it was usurped by
Devendra Singh. On 3.12.2018, at 9.30
AM, while complainant was present
infront of his house, Devendra Singh, Son
of Mangli Prasad, Amit, Son of Devendra
Singh, Sabal Singh, Son of Devendra
Singh, Malti, wife of Devendra Singh, all
Residents of Beni Nagla, Police Station-
Mau Darwaja, District Farrukhabad, in
joint mensrea, came there and started
abusing in filthy language and extended
threat in case of demanding back of above
money. When complainant tried to save
himself, by hiding inside the house, all of
them trespassed and assaulted him and his
son, who came to rescue him, by Lathi
and Danda, also misbehaved with his
daughter-in-law, and upon rescue call
being made by the complainant, Narvir,
Son of Sohan Lal, Upendra, Son of Lalta
Prasad and other villagers gathered there.
After seeing gathering of villagers,
accused persons ran away from the spot
by extending threat of dire consequences,
in case of opening of lips to the Police.
An Application was moved before the
Superintended of Police, but of no avail.
Hence, instant complaint was filed,
wherein, complainant was examined,
under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., and the
same reiteration was made in the
statement, as was narrated
in the
complaint, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
Two of witnesses, namely, PW-1, Rani
and PW-2, Maharam were examined,
4 All. Devendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
205
under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. They too
have said the same version as was there in
the statement of complainant and on the
basis of it, there was prima facie evidence
for summoning for cognizable offence,
punishable, under Sections 406, 323, 504
and 506 of IPC. Hence, accused persons,
Devendra Singh, Amit, Sabal Singh and
Malti were summoned for offences,
punishable, under Sections 406, 323, 504
and 506 of IPC.

5. Perusal of statement, recorded
under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C.
shows that it supports finding of the
summoning order and this Court, in
exercise of inherent power, vested, under
Section 482 of Cr. P.C., is not supposed to
interfere, unless there is abuse of process
of law or evidence on record was
otherwise.

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 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,
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(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. In view of what has been
discussed above, this Application, filed
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being
devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A206

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Crl. Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr. P.C.) No.
37442 of 2019

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Amrit Shanker Dubey

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

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Summoning order -
Complaint Case - it is apparent that the
accused persons have been summoned
for offences, punishable, under Sections
354, 323 and 504 of IPC for which there
is no precedent of having medico legal
report because the ingredient of physical
assault with complainant was there, and
a complaint can be made without there
being
any
medico
legal
report-The
applicants cannot seek indulgence of this
Court, for exercise of inherent power,
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - It is not
expected from this Court to meticulously
analyze
evidences
at
this
juncture,
rather it is a question to be decided at
the time of trial by the Trial court.

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. St., 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. v. 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
applicants over this Application, moved
under
Section
482
of
Code
of
CriminalProcedure,
1973
(In
short
'Cr.P.C.'), by the applicants, with a prayer
for quashing of impugned summoning