# Head Constable, Kanpur Dehat & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 959 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-08-21 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 30340 of 2023 - **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/head-constable-kanpur-dehat-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50867 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 161 & 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 383, 386, 389, 452, 504, 506 & 507 - Application u/s 482 - for quashing the charge-sheet as well as impugned order by which discharge application filed by the accused-applicant was rejected - FIR - under section 452, 386, 504, 506 & 507 IPC - Investigation - Statement recorded u/section 161 of Cr.P.C. - charge sheet - Discharge Application - rejected - charges are framed u/section 386, 389, 452, 504, 506 & 507 IPC - plea taken that - neither in the FIR nor in the Statement recorded u/section 161 Cr.P.C. there is allegation as defined in section 383 IPC as well as no case is made out u/s 452 IPC and as such no case would also be made u/s 504, 506 & 507 of IPC - Court finds that, charges under Sections 386 and 389 IPC were improperly framed as the FIR and Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statements lacked essential ingredients-no delivery of property or fear of accusationrequired under Sections 383 and 389 IPC. - held that, no case is made out u/sections 386 & 389 IPC, but the trial court erred by functioning like a post office accepted the charge-sheet and treating the version true, rejecting the discharge application without judicial scrutiny - however, remaining sections i.e. Sections 452, 504, 506, and 507 IPC, this court found no illegality in rejecting the discharge application and framing charges - consequently, Application is partly allowed - trial Court directed that proceedings continue under valid sections in accordance with law. (Para - 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39) Application Partly Allowed. (E-11) List of Cases cited: ## Text 1 All. Head Constable, Kanpur Dehat & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 959 not find any merit in the present case application. 25. Therefore, the present application is rejected without prejudice rights of the applicants to challenge the order rejecting the discharge application and order of the revisional court before the appropriate forum. ---------- (2024) 1 ILRA 959 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J. Application U/S 482. No. 30340 of 2023 Head Constable, Kanpur Dehat & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicants: Sri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, Sri Mahendra Singh Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section - 482 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Application u/s 482 - for quashing the impugned order as well as summoning order - Preliminary objection - regarding maintainability of the Application u/section 482 against a judicial order - Court while referring the judgments passed by the Apex Court, in case of 'Radhey Shyam Vs St. of U.P.' & 'Prabhu Chawla Vs St. of Rajasthan & Another', held that - Judicial orders should be challenged through an alternative remedy or in the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, not under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., - except in exceptional case - accordingly, present Application is dismissed. (Para - 4) Application Dismissed. (E-11) List of Cases cited: 1. Radhey Shyam Vs St. of U.P. - (2015) 5 SCC 423, 2. Prabhu Chawla Vs St. of Raj. & anr.- (2015) 17 SCC 562. (Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.) 1. By way of present Application, the applicants have challenged the order dated 15.03.2021 passed by Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat as well as summoning order dated 02.04.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. (Crime Against Women), District Kanpur Dehat. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned A.G.A. as per order of the Apex Court passed in the case of Radhey Shyam Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423, wherein it is observed that all the judicial orders will be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is confusion in Registry of the High Court whether the judicial order passed by the court below can be challenged under Application 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. This Court is of the view that Hon'ble Apex Court clearly observed in the aforesaid judgment that all the judicial orders will be challenged in the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, judicial orders should normally be challenged under Article 227 of the 960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Constitution of India. However, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2015) 17 SCC (562) observed that alternative remedy is not a bar to exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in exceptional case, therefore, in exceptional case application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. may be entertained against judicial order in the interest of justice. 5. In view of the above legal position, applicants are permitted to file Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the impugned judicial orders. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the present Application is dismissed. 7. Certified copy of the impugned order may be returned to learned counsel for the applicants after obtaining xerox copy of the same. ---------- (2024) 1 ILRA 960 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J. Application U/S 482. No. 42148 of 2022 Sanjeev Rawat @ Teetu & Anr. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicants: Ms. Shreya Gupta, Shambhavi Sengar Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A., Sri Rahul Kumar Sharma, Sri Saurabh Agarwal Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 161 & 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 383, 386, 389, 452, 504, 506 & 507 - Application u/s 482 - for quashing the charge-sheet as well as impugned order by which discharge application filed by the accused-applicant was rejected - FIR - under section 452, 386, 504, 506 & 507 IPC - Investigation - Statement recorded u/section 161 of Cr.P.C. - charge sheet - Discharge Application - rejected - charges are framed u/section 386, 389, 452, 504, 506 & 507 IPC - plea taken that - neither in the FIR nor in the Statement recorded u/section 161 Cr.P.C. there is allegation as defined in section 383 IPC as well as no case is made out u/s 452 IPC and as such no case would also be made u/s 504, 506 & 507 of IPC - Court finds that, charges under Sections 386 and 389 IPC were improperly framed as the FIR and Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statements lacked essential ingredients-no delivery of property or fear of accusationrequired under Sections 383 and 389 IPC. - held that, no case is made out u/sections 386 & 389 IPC, but the trial court erred by functioning like a post office accepted the charge-sheet and treating the version true, rejecting the discharge application without judicial scrutiny - however, remaining sections i.e. Sections 452, 504, 506, and 507 IPC, this court found no illegality in rejecting the discharge application and framing charges - consequently, Application is partly allowed - trial Court directed that proceedings continue under valid sections in accordance with law. (Para - 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39) Application Partly Allowed. (E-11) List of Cases cited: 1. Isaac Isanga Musumba & ors. Vs St. of Mah. & ors. - (2014) 15 SCC 357, 2. Bhupinder Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr. - 2022 1 ACR 816, 3. Mohammad Ubaid Vs St. of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30337 of 2023 on 2.8.2023, 4. Smt. Laxmi Devi & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. passed in Application U/S 482 No.5688 of 2018.