# Dr. Jaipal Gupta v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 148
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-19
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-jaipal-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44783
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

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: -

## Text

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
3 All. Dr. Jaipal Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
149
dismissed for want of prosecution. Again,
this is the second application with same
accusation got filed u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
wherein
above
fact
of
previous
application was not disclosed and this
application was treated as a complaint,
wherein
statements
of
complainant
recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and of his
witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C. were at
variance with previous statement made in
previously
instituted
application
u/s
156(3) Cr.P.C. and Trial Judge passed
summoning order, as above. This was
challenged before Court of revision and
learned Additional Sessions Judge in the
body of order mentioned the objection
raised by applicant and the argument
advanced by counsel for applicant, but
did not give any finding about same and
dismissed revision, which was abuse of
process of court. Hence this proceeding
with above prayer.

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

5. Admittedly, previous application
u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed for want
of prosecution i.e. it was not decided on
merit. The application moved u/s 156(3)
Cr.P.C. was with prayer for directing
Station Officer concerned to register and
investigate the case, which remained
pending for more than a year and owing
to absence of applicant, it was dismissed
for want of prosecution. Hence dismisssal
of this application was neither on merit
nor was at bar for subsequent proceeding.
Second application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
moved with same contention, was treated
as a complaint, wherein complainant was
examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C., who reiterated
his version and this was supported by two
witnesses in their statements recorded u/s
202 Cr.P.C. Though there is variance
regarding amount and place of its delivery
but delivery under deceit is there in both
applications. Hence it is a question of fact
to be seen by trial court at the stage of
trial, but it was not within jurisdiction of
revisional court or before this court in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s
482 Cr.P.C. as meticulous examination of
facts, which are question of facts, are to
be made by trial court during trial. But
from the contention made in complaint,
there is sufficient accusation for offences
for which summoning order is there.
Same is with full reiteration by statements
of
complainant
and
his
witnesses
recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

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,
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(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 applicant
surrenders
before
before
the
court
concerned within 30 days from today and
applies for bail, it will decide his 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 applicant, in the above
mentioned case.
----------
(2019)11ILR A150
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.11.2019