# Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 11 ILRA 46
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-04-22
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No.23876 of 2018
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kamlesh-kumar-dwivedi-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45422
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Nature and
scope- The power under Section 482 to
quash proceedings should not be used
mechanically or routinely, but with care
and caution, only when a clear case for
quashing is made out and failure to
interfere would lead to a miscarriage of
justice - The expression "rarest of rare
cases" is not used in the sense in which it
is used with reference to punishment for
offences under Section 302 IPC, but to
emphasize that the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR or criminal
proceedings should be used sparingly and
with circumspection- High Court should
not exercise jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC embarking upon an enquiry into
whether evidence is reliable or not or
whether on reasonable apprehension of
evidence, allegations are not sustainable,
or decide function of Trial Judge- If basic
ingredients
of
offfences
alleged
are
altogether absent, criminal proceedings
can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

It is settled law that the inherent power u/s 482
of the Cr.Pc should be exercised sparingly, with
caution
and
circumspection
and
without
entering into the factual aspects of the case.
Only where either the failure to interfere would
lead to miscarriage of justice or where the basic
ingredients of the alleged offences are wholly
missing, that the Court should exercise its
inherent power.

Criminal Application rejected. (Para 12, 16,
17, 21) (E-3)

Case law/ Judgements relied upon:-

## Text

46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. In present case, informant, right
from the stage of registration of first
information
report
till
recording
of
statement, under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.,
reiterated accusation made in the first
information report, which was supported by
other witnesses, too, on the basis of which
cognizance was taken. This was challenged
in a previously instituted proceeding, being
Application U/S 482 No.23876 of 2018
(Supra), wherein, it was held by this Court
itself that it cannot be said that there is no
ground for making out offence against
Vinod Rawat, applicant herein. Hence,
impugned order was well within provisions
of law, which does not call for any
interference by this Court, in exercise of
jurisdiction, conferred by Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.

9. In view of what has been discussed
above, this Application, under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., merits dismissal and it stands
dismissed accordingly.
----------

(2020)11ILR A46
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 11017 of 2006

Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri J.P. Mishra, Sri Ashish Nigam

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri K.C. Saxena

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Nature and
scope- The power under Section 482 to
quash proceedings should not be used
mechanically or routinely, but with care
and caution, only when a clear case for
quashing is made out and failure to
interfere would lead to a miscarriage of
justice - The expression "rarest of rare
cases" is not used in the sense in which it
is used with reference to punishment for
offences under Section 302 IPC, but to
emphasize that the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR or criminal
proceedings should be used sparingly and
with circumspection- High Court should
not exercise jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC embarking upon an enquiry into
whether evidence is reliable or not or
whether on reasonable apprehension of
evidence, allegations are not sustainable,
or decide function of Trial Judge- If basic
ingredients
of
offfences
alleged
are
altogether absent, criminal proceedings
can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

It is settled law that the inherent power u/s 482
of the Cr.Pc should be exercised sparingly, with
caution
and
circumspection
and
without
entering into the factual aspects of the case.
Only where either the failure to interfere would
lead to miscarriage of justice or where the basic
ingredients of the alleged offences are wholly
missing, that the Court should exercise its
inherent power.

Criminal Application rejected. (Para 12, 16,
17, 21) (E-3)

Case law/ Judgements relied upon:-

1. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors., 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335

2. Google India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Visakha Industries &
ors., AIR 2020 SC 350

3. Jeffrey J. Diermeier & ors.Vs St. of W.B &
ors., (2010) 6 SCC 243

4. Som Mittal Vs St. of Kar., (2008) 3 SCC 753
11 All. Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
47
5. Lakshman Vs St. of Kar. & ors., (2019) 9 SCC
677

6. Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu & ors. Vs St. of
A.P & ors., AIR 2019 SC 3913

7. Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & ors Vs
Mohd. Sharaful Haque & ors, (2005) 1 SCC 122

8. Rakhi Mishra Vs St. of Bih. & ors., (2017) 16
SCC 772

9. Sonu Gupta Vs Deepak Gupta & ors. , (2015)
3 SC 424

10. Roshni Chopra & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2019 (7) Scale 152

11. Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports Vs
Roshanlal Agarwal & ors., (2003) 4 SCC 139

12. U. P. Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan
Meaking Limited & ors., (2000) 3 SCC 745

13. Nupur Talwar Vs CBI & ors., (2012) 11 SCC
465.

14. Parbatbhai Aahir & ors. Vs St. of Guj. & Ors,
(2017) 9 SCC 641

15. Arun Singh & ors.Vs St. of U.P. ,Criminal
Appeal no.250 of 2020 ( SLP (Crl.) No. 5224 of
2017),
decided
by
Supreme
Court
on
10.02.2020

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri J.P. Mishra, learned
counsel for applicant and learned AGA for
State. None has appeared on behalf of
respondent-2, though called twice. Hence I
proceed to decide this application after
having heard learned counsel for applicant
and learned AGA.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by Kamlesh Kumar
Dwivedi-sole applicant with a prayer to
quash Charge Sheet No. 27 of 2006 dated
11.04.2006 filed in Case Crime No.1164 of
2006, under Sections 306 IPC, Police
Station Kotwali Mahoba, District Mahoba.

3. Facts, in brief, in the present case
are that Opposite Party-2 Ram Narayan
Prajapati, father of Dhirendra Pratap Singh
lodged
First
Information
Report
(hereinafter referred to as "F.I.R.") at
Police Station-Kotwali Mahoba, District
Mahoba stating that his son was a student
of Class-XII. After Deepawali vacation, he
had come to school from his house and was
residing
in
hostel.
On
20.11.2004,
Principal, K.C. Pandey from Jawahar
Novoday Vidyalaya, Mahoba suddenly
informed on telephone at around 02:30
A.M. that his son is missing from hostel
and Informant was required to reach
Mahoba to search him out. Informant was
working
in
a
Development
Block,
Sumerpur,
Hameerpur
and
he
was
employed in National Pulse Polio Project.
He could not come immediately. His
younger brother Haldhar Prasad reached
school at 10:00 A.M. and on enquiry,
Principal told him that dead body of
Informant's son Dhirendra Pratap Singh
was lying at Railway Gate, Kidari.
Informant further alleged that whenever his
son used to come at his residence, he
complained that his Principal K.C. Pandey
and House Master Mr. Dubey beat him
badly and also treated him with abusive
language and used to cause to him mental
torture. Therefore, he had doubt that both
i.e. K.C. Pandey and House Master, Mr.
Dubey are responsible to force his son to
commit suicide due to excessive beating
and torture.
. Police made investigation and claimed to
have found suicide note which reads as
under:

"नक़ल सुसाइड नोट "प्रिंप्सपल" मैं
चोर नह िं हूँ आप को गलत फहम हुई है प्िन्होनें
48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
मेर प्िकायत क उन्होिंने अपने बारे में कुछ नह िं
बताया होगाA सर मेरे भ केला प्बस्कुट कभ
कभ गायब हुए हैं लेप्कन मैंने कभ प्िकायत
नह िं क और आि मैंने कर प्िया तो एक चोर
बन गयाA आपने ५० रूपया कहे थे ५० क्या
बल्कि एक लाख कहते तो भ कह िं न कह िं से
लाता अगर नह िं ला पाता तो मर िाताA सर
अगर मेर माूँ नह िं है तो क्या मैं एक अच्छा
लड़का नह िं बन सकता वैसे आपने ठ क कहा
सर मैं एक अच्छा लड़का नह िं हूँ लेप्कन अगले
िन्म में िरूर एक अच्छा लड़का बनने क
कोप्िि करूूँगा मैं बहुत बुरा हूँ सर मैंने आपका
और अपने पापा का प्िल िुखाया है हो सके तो
पापा यह बात बताना प्ििंिग में पहल बार इतना
बेइज्जत महसूस कर रहा हूँ िायि इसप्लए मैं
ऐसा कर रहा हूँ आप का प्िष्य-ध रेन्द्रA"

5. After recording statements of
Informant, his brother, son and some other
students of school, Investigating Officer
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"I.O."),
submitted charge sheet, which is impugned
in present application stating that charge
sheet
has
been
submitted
without
examining that there is no connection
between the complaint of deceased so as to
attract Section 306 IPC. In the case in hand,
there is no nexus between so called suicide
as alleged on the part of applicant. There is
no proximity and there is no material,
therefore, entire prosecution is vitiated in
law. Reliance is placed by learned counsel
for
applicant
on
Supreme
Court's
judgments in Madan Mohan Singh vs.
State of Gujarat and Anr., 2010 (6) SCC
376, Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh, 2010 (1) SCC 750,
State of Kerala and others vs. S
Unnikrishanan Nair and others, 2015 (9)
SCC 639 and S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay
Kumar Mahajan & another, 2010 (12)
SCC 190.

6. Learned counsel for applicant also
stated that in the FIR names of Principal,
K.C. Pandey and one Mr. Dubey have been
taken
while
charge
sheet
has
been
submitted
against
applicant-Kamlesh
Kumar Dwivedi without there being any
material to show that the person named in
FIR is applicant himself, particularly when
in suicide note there is nothing which may
suggest that anything was said by the
deceased-student against the applicant.

7. From perusal of alleged suicide
note, it appears that there was some
complaint made with respect of missing of
bananas
which
was
complained
by
somebody
and
thereafter
something
happened in the school, but who made
complaint and who scolded, nothing is not
very clear from the alleged suicide note.
From the students' statements, it appears
that teachers used to scold the deceasedstudent time to time but only for his
betterment and not either to punish him or
with any malice. Assuming the facts as
stated in FIR correct and having gone
through evidence collected by I.O., the only
scope under Section 482 Cr.P.C., at this
stage, is whether any offence under Section
306 IPC is made out or not. In order to
attract Section 306 IPC, one has to find out
existence of something which may amount
to abetment of committing suicide by the
deceased.

8. In Madan Mohan Singh (supra),
Supreme Court said that in such matters there
must be an allegation that the accused has
instigated the deceased to commit suicide or
secondly engages with one or more other
persons in any conspiracy and lastly that the
accused had in any way aided in the act or
illegal omission to bring out the suicide.
Section 306 IPC reads as under:
11 All. Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
49

"306. Abetment of suicide.--If any
person commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

9. The abetment is defined in Section
107 IPC which reads as under:

"Abetment of a thing

A person abets the doing of a
thing, who:

1. Instigates any person to do that
thing; or

2. Engages with one or more
other person or persons in any conspiracy
for the doing of that thing, if an act or
illegal omission takes place in pursuance of
that conspiracy, and in order to the doing
of that thing; or

3. Intentionally aids, by any act
or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanations

1. A person who, by willful
misrepresentation,
or
by
willful
concealment of a material fact which he is
bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or
procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a
thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing.Illustration: A, a public
officer, is authorized by a warrant from a
Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B,
knowing that fact and also that C is not Z,
willfully represents to A that C is Z, and
thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend
C. Here B abets by instigation the
apprehension of C.

2.Whoever, either prior to or at the
time of the commission of an act, does
anything in order to facilitate the commission
of that act, and thereby facilitates the
commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of
that act."

10. Allegation that somebody has done
something wrong which he should not have
done, all explanations given by such person
with respect to allegation that he had done
something wrong per se, cannot be said to be
a material or fact which can be constituted as
if abetment to commit crime in my view are
within ambit of Section 306 IPC read with
Section 107 IPC. If a person is hypersensitive
to ordinary petulance, discord and difference
which happen in our day to day life the
charge of abetment to suicide cannot be
leveled against another person, who has to
perform his duty in ordinary course of
business. Job of a Teacher is always supposed
to teach his students and tell them what is
good for them. If instructions given by a
Teacher or behaviour by a Teacher is treated
to be a torture or an abetment to commit
suicide, things will be very different and
serious enough and may create chaos for the
entire community of Teachers as well. In
State of Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and
another, (1994) 1 SCC 73, it was held that
the Court should be extremely careful in
assessing the facts and circumstances of each
case and the evidence to find out whether the
same can be brought within the ambit of
abetment to commit suicide. If it appears to
the Court that a victim committed suicide was
hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord
and difference in domestic life quite common
to society to which victim belong and such
petulance, discord and difference were not
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
individual in a given society to commit
suicide. The conscience of the Court should
not be satisfied for basing a finding that
accused charged of abetment to commit
offence of suicide should be found guilty.

11. Principle of law laid down in
aforesaid judgments also as relied by
learned counsel for applicant are not
acceptable as not otherwise binding upon
50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
this Court but question as to whether at this
stage when charge sheet has been submitted
such defence of applicant can be examined
or whether the Court can examine the
evidence collected by Investigating Officer
or let the Trial Court record finding of fact.

12. In my view, here is some
difficulty and this Court cannot go to this
extent of enquiry on an application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage.

13. The principles which justify
interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by
Court have been laid down in various
authorities in which Supreme Court's
judgment in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan
Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
was leading precedent and thereafter matter
has also been examined by even Larger
Benches.

14. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan
Lal
and
others
(supra)
issue
of
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been considered and what has
been laid down therein in paragraph 102,
has been repeatedly followed and reiterated
consistently. In very recent judgment in
Google
India
Private
Limited
Vs.
Visakha Industries and Ors. , AIR 2020
SC 350, guidelines laid down in paragraph
102 in Bhajal Lal's case (supra) have
been reproduced as under :

"102. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by
this Court in a series of decisions relating
to the exercise of the extraordinary power
Under Article 226 or the inherent powers
Under Section 482 of the Code which we
have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly
defined
and
sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive
list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made
in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the Accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the
first
information
report
and
other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not
disclose
a
cognizable
offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers
Under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of
the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against
the Accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated Under Section
155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made
in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the Accused.

(6) Where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the
11 All. Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
51
provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted)
to
the
institution
and
continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the
Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is 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." (emphasis added)

15. Court has also reproduced note of
caution given in paragraph 103 in Bhajan
Lal's case (supra) which reads as under :

"103. We also give a note of
caution to the effect that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised
very
sparingly
and
with
circumspection and that too in the rarest
of rare cases; that the court will not be
justified in embarking upon an enquiry as
to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR or the complaint and that the
extraordinary or inherent powers do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the
court to act according to its whim or
caprice." (emphasis added)

16. What would be the scope of
expression "rarest of rare cases" referred to
in para 103 in State of Haryana vs.
Bhajan Lal (supra) has been considered in
Jeffrey J. Diermeier and Ors. Vs. State
of West Bengal and Ors. , 2010 (6) SCC
243, Court has said that words "rarest of
rare cases" are used after the words
'sparingly and with circumspection' while
describing scope of Section 482 CrPC.
Those
words
merely
emphasize
and
reiterate what is intended to be conveyed
by
the
words
'sparingly
and
with
circumspection'. They mean that the power
under Section 482 to quash proceedings
should not be used mechanically or
routinely, but with care and caution, only
when a clear case for quashing is made out
and failure to interfere would lead to a
miscarriage of justice. The expression
"rarest of rare cases" is not used in the
sense in which it is used with reference to
punishment for offences under Section 302
IPC, but to emphasize that the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR or
criminal proceedings should be used
sparingly and with circumspection.

17. Supreme Court in Jeffrey J.
Diermeier (supra) infact referred to an
earlier Three Judges' Bench judgment in
Som Mittal Vs. State of Karnataka, 2008
(3) SCC 753, to explain phrase "rarest of
rare cases". In Som Mittal (supra), Court
also said that exercise of inherent power
under Section 482 CrPC is not a rule but
exception. Exception is applied only when
it is brought to notice of Court that grave
miscarriage of justice would be added if
trial is allowed to proceed where accused
would be harassed unnecessarily or if trial
is allowed to linger when prima facie it
appears to Court that trial would likely to
be ended in acquittal. Whenever question
of fact is raised which requires evidence,
Courts always said that at pre trial stage i.e.
at the stage of cognizance taken by
Magistrate power under Section 482 CrPC
would not be appropriate to be utilized,
since, question of fact has to be decided in
the light of evidence which are yet to be
adduced by parties.

18. In Lakshman vs. State of
Karnataka and others, 2019 (9) SCC 677
52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court said that it is not permissible for
High Court in application under Section
482 CrPC to record any finding wherever
there are factual disputes. Court also held
that even in dispute of civil nature where
there is allegation of breach of contract, if
there is any element of breach of trust with
mens rea, it gives rise to criminal
prosecution as well and merely on the
ground that there was civil dispute,
criminality involved in the matter cannot be
ignored. Further whether there is any mens
rea on part of accused or not, is a matter
required to be considered having regard to
facts and circumstances and contents of
complaint and evidence etc, therefore, it
cannot be said pre judged in a petition
under Section 482 CrPC.

19.

In
Chilakamarthi
Venkateswarlu and Ors. Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and Ors., AIR 2019 SC
3913,
Court
reiterated
that
inherent
jurisdiction though wide and expansive has
to be exercised sparingly, carefully and
with caution and only when such exercise
would justify by tests specifically laid
down in Section itself. In paragraph 14 of
judgment, Court said :

"14. For
interference
Under
Section 482, three conditions are to be
fulfilled. The injustice which comes to light
should be of a grave, and not of a trivial
character; it should be palpable and clear
and not doubtful and there should exist no
other provision of law by which the party
aggrieved could have sought relief."
(emphasis added)

20. Court also said that in exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC it is
not permissible for the Court to act as if it
were Trial Court. Court has only to be
prima facie satisfied about existence of
sufficient ground for proceeding against
accused. For that limited purpose, Court
can evaluate material and documents on
record but it cannot appreciate evidence to
conclude whether materials produced are
sufficient or not for convicting accused.
High Court should not exercise jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC embarking upon
an enquiry into whether evidence is reliable
or
not
or
whether
on
reasonable
apprehension of evidence, allegations are
not sustainable, or decide function of Trial
Judge. For the above proposition, Court
relied on its earlier authority in Zandu
Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and
others vs Mohd. Sharaful Haque and
others, 2005 (1) SCC 122.

21. Power under section 482 CrPC
should not be exercised to stifle legitimate
prosecution. At the same time, if basic
ingredients
of
offfences
alleged
are
altogether absent, criminal proceedings can
be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Relying on M.A.A. Annamalai Vs. State
of Karnataka and Ors. , 2010 (8) SCC
524, Sharda Prasad Sinha Vs. State of
Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 1754 and Nagawwa
Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi
and Ors., 1976 AIR 1976 SC 1947, Court
in Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and
Ors. (supra) said that where allegations set
out in complaint or charge sheet do not
constitute any offence, it is open to High
Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC to quash order
passed by Magistrate taking cognizance of
offence. Inherent power under Section 482
CrPC is intended to prevent abuse of
process of Court and to clear ends of
justice. Such power cannot be exercised to
do something which is expressly barred
under CrPC. Magistrate also has to take
cognizance applying judicial mind only to
see whether prima facie case is made out
11 All. Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
53
for summoning accused persons or not. At
this stage, Magistrate is neither required to
consider FIR version nor he is required to
evaluate value of materials or evidence of
complainant find out at this stage whether
evidence would lead to conviction or not.

22. It has also been so observed in
Rakhi Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and
Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 772 and Sonu Gupta
Vs. Deepak Gupta and Ors. , 2015 (3) SC
424 and followed recently in Roshni
Chopra and others vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2019 (7) Scale 152. Here Court
also referred to judgment in Dy. Chief
Controller of Imports & Exports v.
Roshanlal Agarwal and Ors., (2003) 4
SCC 139, wherein paragraph 9, Court said
that in determining the question whether
any process has to be issued or not,
Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there
is sufficient ground for proceeding or not
and whether there is sufficient ground for
conviction;
whether
the
evidence
is
adequate for supporting conviction, can be
determined only at the trial and not at the
stage of inquiry.

23. However, it is also true that at the
stage of issuing process to the accused,
Magistrate is not required to record detailed
reasons. In U. P. Pollution Control Board
vs. Mohan Meaking Limited and others,
2000 (3) SCC 745, after referring to a
decision in Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs State
of West Bengal 2001 SCC 722, Court said
:

"Legislature has stressed the need
to record reasons in certain situations such
as dismissal of complaint without issuing
process. There is no such requirement
imposed on a Magistrate for passed
detailed order while issuing summons.
Process issued to accused cannot be
quashed merely on the ground that
Magistrate had not passed a speaking
order." (emphasis added)

24. Same proposition was reiterated in
Nupur Talwar Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation and others, 2012 (11) SCC
465.

25. In a Three Judges' Bench in
Parbatbhai Aahir and Ors. Vs State of
Gujarat and Ors, 2017 (9) SCC 641,
Court has observed that Section 482 CrPC
is prefaced with an overriding provision. It
saves inherent power of High Court, as a
superior court, to make such orders as are
necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. In Paragraph 15
of the judgment Court summarized as
under :

"(i) Section 482 preserves the
inherent powers of the High Court to
prevent an abuse of the process of any
court or to secure the ends of justice. The
provision does not confer new powers. It
only recognises and preserves powers
which inhere in the High Court;

(ii)
The
invocation
of
the
jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a
First Information Report or a criminal
proceeding on the ground that a settlement
has been arrived at between the offender
and the victim is not the same as the
invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding
an
offence.
While
compounding an offence, the power of the
court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The power to quash
Under Section 482 is attracted even if the
offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion
whether
a
criminal
proceeding
or
54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complaint should be quashed in exercise of
its jurisdiction Under Section 482, the
High Court must evaluate whether the
ends of justice would justify the exercise
of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of
the High Court has a wide ambit and
plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent
an abuse of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a
complaint or First Information Report
should be quashed on the ground that the
offender and victim have settled the
dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts
and circumstances of each case and no
exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulated;

(vi) In the exercise of the power
Under Section 482 and while dealing
with a plea that the dispute has been
settled, the High Court must have due
regard to the nature and gravity of the
offence. Heinous and serious offences
involving mental depravity or offences
such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot
appropriately be quashed though the
victim or the family of the victim have
settled the dispute. Such offences are,
truly speaking, not private in nature but
have a serious impact upon society. The
decision to continue with the trial in such
cases is founded on the overriding
element of public interest in punishing
persons for serious offences;

(vii)
As
distinguished
from
serious offences, there may be criminal
cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute.
They stand on a distinct footing in so far
as the exercise of the inherent power to
quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving
offences which arise from commercial,
financial, mercantile, partnership or
similar transactions with an essentially
civil
flavour
may
in
appropriate
situations fall for quashing where
parties have settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceeding
if in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction
is remote and the continuation of a
criminal
proceeding
would
cause
oppression and prejudice; and

(x) There is yet an exception to
the principle set out in propositions (viii)
and (ix) above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic
well-being of the state have implications
which lie beyond the domain of a mere
dispute between private disputants. The
High
Court
would
be
justified
in
declining to quash where the offender is
involved in an activity akin to a financial
or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The
consequences of the act complained of
upon the financial or economic system
will weigh in the balance." (emphasis
added)

26. Above observations have been
reiterated in Arun Singh and other Vs
State of U.P. passed in Criminal Appeal
no.250 of 2020 (arising out of Special
Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5224 of 2017),
decided by Supreme Court on 10.02.2020.

27. It is open to the applicant to raise
all the pleas when the evidence is adduced
before the Court below but at this stage
when
the
evidence
is
yet
to
be
adduced/placed before Court below, this
Court cannot act like a Trial Court to
examine the material to find out whether
evidence collected by Police satisfies
ingredients of abetment to commit suicide
or not. Hence, I do not find any reason to
interfere at this stage.
11 All. Raghav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
55

28. The application lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if
any, stands vacated.
----------
(2020)11ILR A55
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 12606 of 2020

Raghav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Anand Kumar Singh

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

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code
(2 of 1974) - Sections 202, 204, 200 -
Issuance of process - summoning -
Prima-facie case is only to be seen by
Magistrate on the basis of evidence
collected by him under his enquiry u/s
200
&
202
Cr.P.C.
-
Accused
evidence/defence - not to be seen at
that stage - evidence placed by accused
is
to
be
seen
after
recording
of
statement u/s 244 Cr.P.C. or in any
discharge application moved by accused
(Para 5)

Dismissed (E-5)

Listed of Cases cited:-

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 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

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant
and
learned
A.G.A.
representing
the
State.
Perused
the
records.

2. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant
Raghav against State of U.P. and Smt.
Geeta with prayer to quash summoning
order dated 05.11.2019 passed by C.J.M.,
Mainpuri, in Complaint Case No. 231 of
2017, Smt. Geeta Devi Vs. Raghav and
others, under Sections 304B I.P.C., P.S.
Bichawa, district Mainpuri, as well as the
order dated 24.2.2020 passed by Sessions
Judge, Mainpuri, in Criminal Revision
No. 03 of 2020, Raghav Vs. State of U.P.
and another.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
argued that an application u/s 156(3)
Cr.P.C. was filed by complainant and it was
treated to be complaint case. Against this
order dated 30.1.2017 the complaint filed
Application u/s 482 No. 5870 of 2017, Smt.
Geeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others,
wherein proceeding was dismissed vide
order dated 21.2.2017. Against this order
dated 21.2.2017 the complainant filed and
S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India as Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.
7381 of 2017, which was dismissed vide
order dated 16.5.2018 with direction for
dismissal of all pending applications. This