# K.P. Thakur & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 40418 of 2012
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-18
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 40418 of 2012
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/k-p-thakur-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46207
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

law-Applicants
were
Enquiry
Officer and Presiding Officer respectivelyApplicant was delinquent employee-false
caomplaint
under
SC/St
Act
filedingredients of section 3(1) (X) not foundalleged place of incidence was chamber-not
a public view-no mention that he was
insulted being a member of Scheduled
Caste-Application
partly
allowedsummoning
for
offence
u/s
3(1)
(X)
quashed. (E-9)
Cases cited:

## Text

3-5 All. K.P. Thakur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1731
Judge, Court No.10, Meerut in S.T. No.447
of 2018 and 912 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs.
Ikram and Ors.), under Sections 147, 148,
149, 323, 342, 352, 307, 302 and 308 IPC,
Police
Station
Parichitgarh,
District
Meerut, is hereby quashed with the
direction that since the trial has proceeded
and is at an advanced stage as the
prosecution has examined the prosecution
witness of the trial and if the trial court
considers after evaluating the evidence
before it, which has come during trial then
the trial court may proceed against the
persons, who appears to be guilty of the
commission of offence with the aid of
Section 319 Cr.P.C.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1731
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 40418 of 2012

K.P. Thakur & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Sunil Tripathi, Sri S.K. Tripathi, Sri
Amitabh Trivedi, Sri Devesh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Ashok Kumar

Criminal
law-Applicants
were
Enquiry
Officer and Presiding Officer respectivelyApplicant was delinquent employee-false
caomplaint
under
SC/St
Act
filedingredients of section 3(1) (X) not foundalleged place of incidence was chamber-not
a public view-no mention that he was
insulted being a member of Scheduled
Caste-Application
partly
allowedsummoning
for
offence
u/s
3(1)
(X)
quashed. (E-9)
Cases cited:

1. Gorige Pentaiah Vs. St. of A.P. & ors. (2008) 12
Supreme Court Cases 531

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke Vs. St. Of Mah. & anr.
AIR 2018 SC 2659

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

1. The applicants, by means of this
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have
invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
with prayer to quash the entire proceeding of
Complaint Case No. 1577 of 2012, under
Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section
3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, pending in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Duddhi, Sonebhadra.

2. Heard learned counsel for applicants,
learned counsel for opposite party no. 2,
learned A.G.A. for State and perused the
record.

3. Learned counsel for applicants
argued that a departmental inquiry was
pending against Vinod Kumar Tanay,
1732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wherein applicant no. 1 K.P. Thakur was
Enquiry Officer and applicant no. 2 Binod
Kumar was Presenting Officer. This
enquiry was being hindered by Vinod
Kumar Tanay by any means. He was
summoned for recording of evidence in
above inquiry, where he came with M.P.
Tiwari, another co-worker. It was objected
with a direction to M.P. Tiwari not to
intervene in the proceeding of enquiry and
he was asked to remain outside of the
chamber of applicant no. 1, wherein
enquiry was being conducted. He made
obstruction. The complainant Vinod Kumar
Tanay was of habit of creating hindrance in
the smooth functioning by making false
accusation at different stages because of
being
member
of
Scheduled
Caste
community. In that enquiry too he tried so,
for which instant complaint was lodged by
applicants to Department's superiors as well
as local authorities. This complaint, with
false accusation, was got lodged before
court of Judicial Magistrate, Duddhi,
Sonebhadra,
wherein
allegation
was
levelled with a view to make hindrance in
above departmental enquiry, wherein he
was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
and his two witnesses (co-workers), were
examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and on
the basis of same, learned Magistrate
passed impugned summoning order for
offences punishable under Sections 323,
504, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(X)
of SC/ST Act, whereas no assault or abuse
in a public view was said to be made by
applicants nor it was ever made. The
statements, recorded under Section 200
Cr.P.C. as of complainant was with no
mention that this occurrence of alleged
assault and abuse was made with intention
to abuse or insult on the basis of
complainant being member of Scheduled
Caste community by present applicants,
who were not member of Scheduled Caste
community. The place of occurrence has
been said to be chamber of applicant no. 1
that too after bolting it from inside i.e. it
was not an abuse in the public view. The
essential ingredients of offence punishable
under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled
Castes
and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred as the Act) are
intentionally insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in
any place within public view. In Gorige
Pentaiah
Versus
State
of
Andhra
Pradesh & Others; (2008) 12 Supreme
Court
Cases
531,
apex
court
has
propounded at para 6 that a public view is
the view, which is of public access. Once it
is inside any house, it will not be a public
view and in the case of lack of above basic
ingredient, the offences of Section 3(1)(X)
of the Act is not completed. The same has
been propounded by apex court while
interpreting public view in same case at
para 28. In present case, the place of
occurrence has been said to be chamber of
applicant no. 1, which was said to be bolted
from inside. Meaning thereby, that was not
a public view at all. The enquiry concluded
with dismissal of complainant as well as his
witnesses. Applicants being officers of
Northern
Coalfields
Limited
being
Controller and Head of Department of
Mining,
where
complainant
was
an
employee and they are to take work from
him with administrative control and if such
type of practice is being permitted then it
will be highly impossible for administrative
superiors
in
getting
work
from
administrative inferiors in performance of
official duties. The allegations levelled by
complainant was false, baseless and under
manipulation, for hindering senior officers
and influencing enquiry being conducted
against him. It was abuse of process of law.
3-5 All. K.P. Thakur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1733
Hence, this application with above prayer
for setting aside impugned summoning
order.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party
no. 2 vehemently opposed above argument
with this contention that there was huge
corruption in the office of applicants, for
which repeated complaint was being made by
complainant, and no inquiry was got
conducted, whereas documents regarding
same were in the office of given section of
the office concerned from where it may be
taken and inquiry may be conducted, but no
such inquiry was ever conducted and
complainant was being victimized, wherefor
above departmental enquiry was being
constituted
and
proceeded,
wherein
complainant along with his colleague M.P.
Tiwari, went for appearing in above enquiry.
When this occurrence took place, door was
bolted from inside and M.P. Tiwari was
asked to remain outside from chamber,
wherein he was assaulted and insulted by
taking name of his caste and threat of dire
consequences was extended, which was
instantly complained to Department's officers
as well as local authorities and police, but of
no avail. Then a complaint was filed before
Judicial Magistrate, where cognizance was
taken and enquiry under Sections 200 and
202 Cr.P.C. was got conducted, thereafter,
prima facie evidence was found and
impugned summoning order was passed
against
applicants,
against
which
this
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed and it is with ulterior motive to get
complainant victimized. Hence, this court in
exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not to
dwell in factual aspect. There was a medical
paper, where injuries were found. Hence, this
application be dismissed.

5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently
argued that in first line of complaint at para 2,
it has been specifically mentioned that
complainant was member of Scheduled Caste
community and he was insulted and abused
by accused persons because of being a
member of Scheduled Caste community and
place of occurrence was an office, which can
never be held to be residential premises of
accused persons. It was a public place. It can
never be said to be not in public view.
Accordingly, this application be dismissed.

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
1734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. But this provision under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is for ensuring end of justice by
avoiding abuse of process of law and it is
not a power creating section under Code of
Criminal
Procedure,
rather
it
is
an
acknowledging power of High Court of
Judicature for ensuring that no abuse of
process of law by any criminal machinery
is to be there and this Court is to see as to
whether there is any abuse of process of
law apparently on the face of record or in
procedure.

9. In present case, the complaint is by
an
administrative
inferior
against
administrative superior, admittedly, who is
conducting a departmental enquiry against
him and he had gone there to participate in
above proceeding. The Enquiry Officer is
to decide as to whether Assisting Officer is
to be given to employee, who is delinquent
employee in above inquiry or inquiry is to
be conducted in camera in Chamber. Any
Tom and Harry can never be permitted to
come inside, wherein the enquiry is being
conducted and to participate in above
enquiry, rather if any Assisting Officer is to
be taken by delinquent employee, he will
have to move an application before
Administrative Head or Enquiry Officer for
appointing and permitting any Assisting
Officer to that delinquent employee and,
thereafter, that Assisting Officer may take
part in above Administrative Enquiry. In
present case, M.P. Tiwari in his statement,
recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., has
said that he went at the place of occurrence
to say the justice. Neither he was appointed
3-5 All. K.P. Thakur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1735
as Assisting Officer nor he was permitted
to take part in enquiry, but he went to that
place for saying justice. He was so social
worker and so a person of securing cause of
justice
that
without
following
the
procedure, he present himself for saying
justice, though he was asked to remain out
and he remained out side. The door was
locked form inside. It was a Chamber of the
Enquiry Officer, where Presenting Officer
and Enquiry Officer were present and it can
never be said to be a public view. Even if,
any occurrence took place at that place, it
may never be said to be a public view and
it has been verified by apex court,
mentioned as above. Hence, the very
ingredient of offence punishable under
Section 3(1)(X) of the Act was missing.
The second aspect is that complainant in
his statement recorded under Section 200
Cr.P.C. has not said that he was insulted
because of being a member of Scheduled
Caste community by a persons, who were
not
member
of
Scheduled
Caste
community. This ingredient too was
missing in the statement of complainant,
recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
Other two witnesses, who were examined
were co-workers of the same Department
and they were admittedly not inside the
room, when this occurrence took place and
how this occurrence took place, what was
precipitation time and what resulted in this
occurrence, were not witnessed by those
witnesses. Hence, for the same occurrence,
these superiors have lodged complaint with
local authorities as well as Department
Heads and for the same, this complaint was
filed there. What was the precipitating
point, could not be determined by those
witnesses. Moreso, apex court in Vaijnath
Kondiba
Khandke
vs
State
Of
Maharashtra and Anr. AIR 2018 SC
2659, has propounded that while dealing
with a matter, in which complaint or
accusation
has
been
lodged
by
administrative junior or employee against
his Head of Office or administrative
superior regarding their exploitation or
harassment, the Court must take in mind
that if such type of occurrence are being
actually visualized, then it will be highly
impossible for administrative superiors to
take work from administrative juniors.
There must be administrative authority of
administrative superiors, then and then
only, they will be in position to take work
from junior employees and mere bald
allegation of harassment and such type of
exploitation are to be strictly analyzed with
all care and caution. Hence, in present
case, admittedly, applicants were Enquiry
Officer and Presenting Officer. They
were conducting a regular departmental
enquiry against complainant. Meaning
thereby, charge was framed and the
employee
complainant
was
charged
employee. Meaning thereby, prima facie,
he was delinquent employee, for which
charge was framed. Preliminary inquiry
stage
was
passed.
Thereafter,
departmental
enquiry
was
being
conducted and when this enquiry was
conducted this fuss was created. Who
created
this
and
what
was
the
precipitating point was to be visualized
and examined by Magistrate before
summoning
applicants,
but
casually
impugned
order
of
summoning
for
offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X)
of the Act was passed. On above facts
and circumstances, as apparently offence
under Section 3(1)(X) of the Act was not
made out, on the basis of evidence
collected
in
inquiry
by
Magistrate
concerned, hence this application merits
to be allowed in part.

10. The application is partly allowed.
The summoning for offence punishable
1736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Section 3(1)(X) of the Act is hereby
quashed. For rest of the offences, the
prayed relief is refused.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1736
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 40911 of 2019

Ballia & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Abhishek
Mayank.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri Ronak Chaturvedi

Criminal law-U.P. Gangster and Anti Social
Activities (Prevention ) Act, 1986-section
12-Trial u/s 302 IPC pending and about to
conclude-Applicant submit that trial under
Gangster Act may first be concluded
thereafter trial u/s302IPC-section 12 of
the Act-case under Gangster Act should
not be delayed-clash of dates with other
case to be avoided- if dates are common
then case under the Gangster Act will get
precedence-other case cannot be placed in
abeyance-Application dismissed.

Held, If the interpretation is given that till the
conclusion of trial under the Gangsters Act all other
cases have to be placed in abeyance, then a chaotic
situation would arise and accused would manage a
case pending under various other acts merely on the
ground of pendency of case under Gangster
Act.(Para 18) (E-9)

In the present case Session Trial against the accused
persons is pending since 2005 and they are just
trying to get delayed the trial with the help of Section
12 of the Gangsters Act.
(Para 19)
After considering all the submissions and the law laid
down by this Court, this Court is of the opinion that
the trial against the accused persons cannot be kept
in abeyance till conclusion of the trial under the
Gangsters Act. The only consideration for this Court is
that there should not be any collusion of date so that
cases under the Gangsters Act are not delayed. (Para
20)

Cases cited:

1. Mohd. Tariq & anr. Vs St. of U.P. Application
U/s 482 No. 18978 of 2019

2. Rohit Singh Vs. St. of U.P. (2016) 95 ACC 350

3. Dharmendra Kirthal Vs St. of U.P. [(2013) 8
SCC 368

4. Mobin Iftikhar Zaidi Vs. St. of U.P.
(Application U/s 482 No. 27361 of 2011)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Singh, J.)

1. Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned
counsel has filed counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the informant, which is taken on
record.

2. Heard Sri Abhishek Srivastava,
learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for
the informant, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.

3. The applicants, through the
present application under Section 482
Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer
to quash the proceedings of S.T. No.
661 of 2005 (State vs. Balliya, under
Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Khair, districtAligarh, pending in the Court of Addl.
District Judge-IV, Aligarh till the
disposal of G.S.T. No. 630 of 2010,
under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster and
Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986,