# Jata Shankar Trivedi & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** Application U/S 482 No. 47456 of 2019
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-31
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 47456 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jata-shankar-trivedi-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46217
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Criminal law- Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Sections 482 -
Inherent jurisdiction - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections-498A and 376D
- exercise of inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the
limits. ( Para -7)

 First information report - previous report of
missing of son of Applicant no.1 was lodged
- occurrence of rape was held to be a
suspicious one - whereupon, Inspector was
directed
for
making
investigation
-
investigation resulted in submission of
chargesheet - wherein, cognizance has
been taken by the learned Magistrate -
chargesheet has been filed on the basis of
evidence,
collected
and
statements
recorded, under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.-
statements, under Sections 164 of Cr.P.C.,
too. (Para - 4)
HELD:- This Court, in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction, conferred upon it by Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, is not expected to
embark upon factual matrix because it may
prejudice fair trial - arguments as well as facts
and circumstances, raised before this Court, can
very well be raised before the Trial court,
concerned, at the stage of proceeding, under
Section 227 of Cr.P.C., and before the
Magistrate, prior to making committal to the
court of Sessions.(Para-4)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
(E-7)

List Of Cases Cited:-

## Text

1768 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
above, this Court does not find even any
illegality or perversity in the orders passed
by the Courts below.

32. This application is accordingly
dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1768
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 47456 of 2019

Jata Shankar Trivedi & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Subash Chandra Tiwari

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

(A) Criminal law- Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Sections 482 -
Inherent jurisdiction - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections-498A and 376D
- exercise of inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the
limits. ( Para -7)

 First information report - previous report of
missing of son of Applicant no.1 was lodged
- occurrence of rape was held to be a
suspicious one - whereupon, Inspector was
directed
for
making
investigation
-
investigation resulted in submission of
chargesheet - wherein, cognizance has
been taken by the learned Magistrate -
chargesheet has been filed on the basis of
evidence,
collected
and
statements
recorded, under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.-
statements, under Sections 164 of Cr.P.C.,
too. (Para - 4)
HELD:- This Court, in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction, conferred upon it by Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, is not expected to
embark upon factual matrix because it may
prejudice fair trial - arguments as well as facts
and circumstances, raised before this Court, can
very well be raised before the Trial court,
concerned, at the stage of proceeding, under
Section 227 of Cr.P.C., and before the
Magistrate, prior to making committal to the
court of Sessions.(Para-4)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
(E-7)

List Of Cases Cited:-

1. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. St. of U.P. ,
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)

2. Hamida Vs. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474

3. Monica Kumar Vs. St. of U.P., (2008) 8 SCC
781

4. Popular Muthiah Vs. State, Represented by
Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296

5. Dhanlakshmi Vs. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr
LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494

6. State of Bihar Vs. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr
LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1

7. Amrawati & anr. Vs. St. of U.P. reported in
2004 (57) ALR 290

8. St. of A.P. Vs. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010
(6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ
3844

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

1. This Application, under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Hereinafter, in short, referred to as
'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by the Applicants,
Jata Shankar Trivedi and Divya Trivedi,
with a prayer for setting aside impugned
chargesheet,
dated
6.12.2018
and
3-5 All. Jata Shankar Trivedi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1769
cognizance taking order, dated 2.2.2019,
with entire proceeding, in Criminal Case
No. 2138 of 2019, State vs. Jata Shankar
Trivedi and othrs, arising out of Case
Crime No.49 of 2018, under Sections-498A
and 376D of Indian Penal Code, Police
Station-Collectorganj,
District-Kanpur
Nagar, pending in the court of Additional
Chief Metropolitant Magistrate, IX, Kanpur
Nagar.

2. Learned counsel for applicants
argued that Opposite party no. 2 fell in love
with the son of Applicant no.1, resulting in
love marriage with him. Both of them
resided separately at Shuklaganj, Unnao.
Applicants are having no concern with
them. Subsequently, Opposite party no.2
fell
in extramarital
relationship with
Rinkesh Shukla, who usurped entire
belonging of son of Applicant No.1 and
ultimately ousted him from his house at
Shuklaganj, Unnao. Being father, Applicant
no.1, and feeling pity upon his own son,
permitted him to reside at his home. Then,
threat was being extended by Rinkesh
Shukla to applicants. Ultimately, this false
case was got manipulated and fabricated
against Applicant no.1 and other accused
persons, with concocted story, whereas, a
missing report of his own son was got
reported, prior to this occurrence, by
Applicant no.1 and this was mentioned in
the first information report, lodged at
Police Station, concerned, itself, that this
concocted story of offence of rape seems to
be suspicious because Applicant no.1 has
moved an application, under Section 156
(3) of Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate,
concerned, with regard to missing of his
son, wherein, apprehension on Opposite
party no.2 and Rinkesh Shukla was
expressed upon which a first information
report was lodged and as a result whereof
this false implication of Applicant no.1 and
other accused is there, wherein impugned
chargesheet has been filed upon which
cognizance has been taken by the court,
concerned, whereas, no such occurrence
ever occurred and applicants are being
victimized by Opposite party no.2. This
was a proceeding, under abuse of process
of law. Hence, for avoiding abuse of
process of law in ensuring ends of justice,
this Application, under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., has been filed, with above prayer.

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

4. From very perusal of the first
information report, it is apparent that the
previous report of missing of son of
Applicant no.1 was lodged and this
occurrence of rape was held to be a
suspicious one, whereupon, Inspector,
Police Station-Shuklaganj, District Kanpur
Nagar,
was
directed
for
making
investigation,
under
above
facts
and
circumstances,
but,
it
is
there
that
investigation resulted in submission of
chargesheet, wherein, cognizance has been
taken by the learned Magistrate. The
chargesheet has been filed on the basis of
evidence,
collected
and
statements
recorded, under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
There are statements, under Sections 164 of
Cr.P.C., too. Hence, this Court, in exercise
of its inherent jurisdiction, conferred upon
it by Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, is not expected to embark upon
factual matrix because it may prejudice fair
trial. However, it cannot be said that there
is nothing on record for making an
indulgence
in
exercise
of
inherent
jurisdiction. Hence, prayed relief, for
quashing of chargesheet is not liable to be
granted, hence, declined. However, the
arguments
as
well
as
facts
and
1770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumstances, raised before this Court, can
very well be raised before the Trial court,
concerned, at the stage of proceeding,
under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., and before
the Magistrate, prior to making committal
to the court of Sessions, that too, by way of
adopting proper procedure, in accordance
with law and if applicants raise such a plea
the courts, concerned, will consider and
decide the same, in accordance with the
provisions of law and precedents on the
issue.

5. 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
judgment, in the case of 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 yet another judgment, in the case of
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
the case of 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".

6. Regarding prevention of abuse of
process of Court, Apex Court, in the case
of 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 the
case of 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".

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

8. In view of what has been discussed
above, this Application, under Section 482
3-5 All. Mahboob & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1771
of Cr.P.C., merits dismissal and it stands
dismissed accordingly.

9.

Applicants
prayed
for
a
protection from being victimized in
above case.

10. In view of the prayer made by
the applicants, they are being afforded an
opportunity to appear and surrender
before the court below within 30 days
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.

11. For a period of 30 days from
today, no coercive action shall be taken
against the applicants.

12. In case, if the applicants do not
appear before the Court below within the
aforesaid period, coercive action shall be
taken against them.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1771
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.01.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 47672 of 2018

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Ravindra Sonker
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal law-Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Sections 482 -
Inherent jurisdiction - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 504, 506,
452 I.P.C. - application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. - Statement of the
complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
- Statement of witnesses under 202
Cr.P.C. - disputed questions of fact
and the defence of the accused cannot
be taken into consideration at the
pre-trial stage - present case - no
cognizable
offence
is
made
out
against the applicants - impugned
order
does
not
suffer
from
any
illegality - no abuse of the process of
law. (Para- 12,16,17)

Application under Section 156(3) - before the
Judicial Magistrate - dispute relating to money
transaction between the complainant and the
applicant - On making objection - the accused
persons assaulted him and his wife due to which
they have received injuries - summoned the
applicants under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506
I.P.C. to face trial - witnesses - examined under
Section 202 - Magistrate has recorded the
statement of the complainant under Section 200
Cr.P.C. - learned magistrate summoned
accused under section 204 Cr.P.C.(Para - 3)

HELD:- At the stage of summoning under
Section 204 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate is
neither required to go into the merits and demerits of the case nor to examine the
genuineness of the allegations or otherwise -
learned Magistrate is required to see, whether
on taking the entire contents of the complaint
on their face value as it is the prima-facie
offence is made out against the accused or not.
(Para-10)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
(E-7)

List Of Cases Cited:-