# Dinesh Chandra & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 623
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-06-11
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 32686 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dinesh-chandra-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-44711
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
498 A, 323 IPC and Cr.P.C., 1973-
Section 482 - Cruelty and assault of wife
in pursuance of demand of dowry -
Complainant, herself, under Section 200
Cr.P.C. and two witnesses under Section
202 Cr.P.C., - reiterated the contention
of complainant - Magistrate passed
summoning order for offence punishable
under Section 498A and 323 I.P.C.- No
illegality found - Under exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. the High Court is not expected
to analyze the factual evidence, which is
a subject of trial Court. (Para 9 & 10)

This
Court
under
exercise
of
inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not
expected to analyze the factual evidence,
which is a subject of trial Court and under the
facts and circumstance of the case and legal
proposition,
this
proceeding
merits
its
dismissal. Application rejected. Direction to
applicants to appear and surrender before the
court below within 30 days. 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.

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

Case Law relied upon/discussed: -

## Text

2 All. Dinesh Chandra & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.
623
2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex Court
clearly held that if a prima facie case is
made out disclosing the ingredients of the
offence, Court should not quash the
complaint. The note of caution was
reiterated that while considering such
petitions the Courts should be very
circumspect, conscious and careful. In State
of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13
SCC 540 it has been held that probabilities
of the prosecution version cannot be
analysed at this stage. Likewise, the
allegations of mala fides of the informant
are of secondary importance.

In the instant matter, the submissions
raised by learned counsel for the applicant
call for determination on questions of fact
which may be adequately adjudicated upon
only by the trial court and even the
submissions made on points of law can also
be more appropriately gone into only by the
trial court. Adjudication of questions of
facts and appreciation of evidence or
examining the reliability and credibility of
the version, does not fall within the arena of
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In
view of the material on record, it can also
not be held that the impugned criminal
proceeding are manifestly attended with
mala fide and maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge.

7. In view of the aforesaid, no case
for quashing of impugned proceedings is
made out.

8. So far as the impugned order
dated 11.06.2019 is concerned, it appears
from the record that applicant was
continuously absconding and was not
appearing before the trial court and that
non-bailable warrants were being issued
against him continuously since last several
years. No illegality or perversity or any
other error could be pointed out in the
impugned order. It is well settled that the
power under section 482 Cr.P.C has to be
exercised by the High Court, inter alia, to
prevent abuse of the process of any court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Though the powers possessed by the High
Court under Section 482 of CrPC are very
wide but the very plenitude of the power
requires great caution in its exercise. The
inherent power can not be exercised to
stifle a legitimate prosecution. Such
powers can not be invoked to interfere
with such type of routine or interim orders
like issuance of non-bailable warrants by
court below in course of trial unless some
glaring illegality or perversity is shown.
The inherent powers have to be exercised
only to give effect to any order under
CrPC, to prevent abuse of the process of
any court and to secure the ends of justice
to scuttle proceedings being in accordance
with law. In the instant matter, no case for
exercise of these powers is made out.

9. The application u/s 482 CrPC
lacks merit and thus, it is dismissed.
----------

(2019)10ILR A623

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 32686 of 2019

Dinesh Chandra & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra

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

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
498 A, 323 IPC and Cr.P.C., 1973-
Section 482 - Cruelty and assault of wife
in pursuance of demand of dowry -
Complainant, herself, under Section 200
Cr.P.C. and two witnesses under Section
202 Cr.P.C., - reiterated the contention
of complainant - Magistrate passed
summoning order for offence punishable
under Section 498A and 323 I.P.C.- No
illegality found - Under exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. the High Court is not expected
to analyze the factual evidence, which is
a subject of trial Court. (Para 9 & 10)

This
Court
under
exercise
of
inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not
expected to analyze the factual evidence,
which is a subject of trial Court and under the
facts and circumstance of the case and legal
proposition,
this
proceeding
merits
its
dismissal. Application rejected. Direction to
applicants to appear and surrender before the
court below within 30 days. 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.

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

Case Law relied upon/discussed: -

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. Represented 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 Bihar Vs Murad Ali Khan (1989) Cr LJ
1005: AIR 1989 SC 1
7. Amrawati & anr. Vs St. of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290
8. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs St. of U.P.
(2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2.

The
present
482
Cr.P.C.
application has been filed to quash the
order dated 4.7.2019 as well as the entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2471
of 2018, under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C.,
Police Station Dataganj, District Budaun,
pending before the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Budaun.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants
argued that it was a case filed in
counterblast of Criminal Complaint No.
43 of 2017 (Rampal Vs. Prempal and
others) Police Station Ujhani, District
Budaun, wherein Prempal, Smt. Rajrani,
Dinesh, Ashish, Yogesh, Harish Chandra,
Smt. Rekha and Ramdeen have been
summoned for offence punishable under
Section 323 and 406 of I.P.C., against
which a proceeding before this Court has
been
filed
wherein
the
criminal
proceeding has been stayed.

4. No cruelty with regard to dowry
was ever made by accused persons. It was
a false and malicious prosecution wherein
entire family members have been falsely
implicated. Hence, the application with
above prayer.
2 All. Dinesh Chandra & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.
625

5. Learned AGA has vehemently
opposed the application.

6. Having heard learned counsels for
both
sides
and
gone
through
the
summoning order, it is apparent that a
complaint was filed by Smt. Urvashi wife
of Dinesh Chandra before the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun, as
Complaint No. 294 of 2017 against her
husband Dinesh Chandra, Smt. Chameli
(Mother-in-law), Rajpal (Father-in-law)
and Km. Savita (Sister-in-law) for offence
punishable under Sections 323, 498A,
504, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of
D.P.
Act,
with
contention
that
complainant was married with Dinesh
Chandra on 4.5.2011 wherein Rs. 4 lacs
were spent and dowry was given as per
the capacity but accused persons being
husband and his family members, were no
satisfied with it and since the first entry in
the nuptial house, cruelty with regard to
demand of additional dowry of one
motorcycle and a golden chain was made,
which
was
narrated
to
mother
of
complainant but under persuasion, she
was again sent to her nuptial house but
this cruelty continued. In between, she
was blessed with two child Gauri and
Gaurav. There occurred some panchayat
in between but on 22.1.2017 accused
persons did assault with regard to demand
of dowry and when family members of
complainant rushed at the house of
complainant, in front of them, she was
beaten and tortured. Matter was reported
but of no avail. She was medically
examined. An application was sent before
the Superintendent of Police, that too, was
of no avail, hence, this complaint was
filed. Complainant, herself, under Section
200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses under
Section 202 Cr.P.C., Harish Chandra and
Dinesh Chandra were examined, who
reiterated the contention of complainant,
thenafter Magistrate, vide order dated
4.7.2019 passed summoning order for
offence punishable under Section 498A
and 323 I.P.C.

7. 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
626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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".

8. 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".

9. This Court under exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. is not expected to analyze the
factual evidence, which is a subject of
trial Court but under above facts and
circumstance and legal proposition, this
proceeding merits its dismissal.

10. Hence, the application is
rejected.

11. However, in view of the entirety
of facts and circumstances of the case, it
is directed that in case the applicants
appear and surrender before the court
below within 30 days and no more from
today and apply for bail, their 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. Till then no
coercive measure shall be taken against
the applicants.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 626

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 32612 of 2019

Kharag Bahadur Chauhan & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri M.S. Chauhan, Sri Shivkumari Chauhan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 323,
427, 452, 504, 506 and Cr.P.C., 1973 -
Section 482 -Quashing of the entire
criminal proceeding and summoning order
-
Specific
accusation
against
accused/applicants of criminal trespass,
assault
and
damage
to
goods
in
statements under sections 200 & 202 of
the Cr.Pc making out prima facie case -
Exercise of inherent powers under section
482 of the Cr.Pc - High Court is not
expected to analyze factual evidence,