# Kharag Bahadur Chauhan & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 626
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-18
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 32612 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kharag-bahadur-chauhan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-44712
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 323,
427, 452, 504, 506 and Cr.P.C., 1973 -
Section 482 -Quashing of the entire
criminal proceeding and summoning order
-
Specific
accusation
against
accused/applicants of criminal trespass,
assault
and
damage
to
goods
in
statements under sections 200 & 202 of
the Cr.Pc making out prima facie case -
Exercise of inherent powers under section
482 of the Cr.Pc - High Court is not
expected to analyze factual evidence,
2 All. Kharag Bahadur Chauhan & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.
627
which is to be placed during trial before
the Trial court. (Para 4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12)

Specific accusations that Applicants tried to
encroach upon land of complainant. Upon
protest by the complainant, Applicants
abused complainant and did criminal trespass
into his house, assaulted him and, thereby,
damaged the household goods.

In exercise of inherent power, conferred by
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court is not
expected to analyze factual evidence, which is
to be placed during trial before the Trial court.
Prima facie, there was evidence, which was
recorded, under Sections 200 and 202 of
Cr.P.C., on the basis of which impugned
summoning order was passed. Application
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., lacks merits and
stands dismissed. Direction to applicants to
appear and surrender before the court below
within 30 days.

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed (E-3)

Case law relied upon/discussed: -

## Text

626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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".

8. 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".

9. This Court under exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. is not expected to analyze the
factual evidence, which is a subject of
trial Court but under above facts and
circumstance and legal proposition, this
proceeding merits its dismissal.

10. Hence, the application is
rejected.

11. However, in view of the entirety
of facts and circumstances of the case, it
is directed that in case the applicants
appear and surrender before the court
below within 30 days and no more 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. Till then no
coercive measure shall be taken against
the applicants.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 626

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 32612 of 2019

Kharag Bahadur Chauhan & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri M.S. Chauhan, Sri Shivkumari Chauhan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 323,
427, 452, 504, 506 and Cr.P.C., 1973 -
Section 482 -Quashing of the entire
criminal proceeding and summoning order
-
Specific
accusation
against
accused/applicants of criminal trespass,
assault
and
damage
to
goods
in
statements under sections 200 & 202 of
the Cr.Pc making out prima facie case -
Exercise of inherent powers under section
482 of the Cr.Pc - High Court is not
expected to analyze factual evidence,
2 All. Kharag Bahadur Chauhan & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.
627
which is to be placed during trial before
the Trial court. (Para 4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12)

Specific accusations that Applicants tried to
encroach upon land of complainant. Upon
protest by the complainant, Applicants
abused complainant and did criminal trespass
into his house, assaulted him and, thereby,
damaged the household goods.

In exercise of inherent power, conferred by
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court is not
expected to analyze factual evidence, which is
to be placed during trial before the Trial court.
Prima facie, there was evidence, which was
recorded, under Sections 200 and 202 of
Cr.P.C., on the basis of which impugned
summoning order was passed. Application
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., lacks merits and
stands dismissed. Direction to applicants to
appear and surrender before the court below
within 30 days.

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed (E-3)

Case law relied upon/discussed: -

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. Muthiah Vs St. Represented by Insp. of
Police (2006) 7 SCC 296
5. Dhanlakshmi Vs R. Prasana Kumar (1990)
Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494
6. St. 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. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs St. of U.P.
(2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC)

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

1. This Application, under Section
482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (In
short 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by the
applicants, Kharag Bahadur Chauhan and
three other accused persons, against State
of U.P and another, with a prayer for
quashing of the entire criminal proceeding
and for setting aside summoning order,
dated 20.5.2019, passed by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Ballia, in
Complaint Case No. 1791 of 2018, Ram
Vilash Chauhan vs. Kharag Bahadur
Chauhan and others, under Sections 323,
427, 452, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code
(In short 'IPC') of Police Station- Rasra,
District Ballia,

2. Learned counsel for the applicants
argued that it was a false implication.
There was enmity with the complainant.
Both sides are from one and same family.
Just
to
harass
the
applicants,
this
complaint was filed wherein interested
witness, who were of same family, were
got examined, under Section 202 of
Cr.P.C., on the basis of which, impugned
summoning order was passed. There was
neither any injury nor damage of
property, because of assault, is on record.
Hence, this Application with above
prayer.

3. Learned AGA, representing the
State
of
U.P.,
has
opposed
this
proceeding.

4. Having heard learned counsel for
both
sides
and
gone
through
the
summoning order, it is apparent that the
same was passed by the Magistrate, after
examining complainant, under Section
200 of Cr.P.C. and his two witnesses,
under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Contention
of the complaint has been reiterated in
those testimonies and it was with specific
628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accusation that on 24.8.2018, at 10.00 AM,
Kharag Bahadur, alongwith others, tried to
encroach upon his land by planting Bamboo
plant over it, which was protested by the
complainant. Reacting to it, on being
exhorted by applicant, Kharag Bahadur
Chauhan, co-accused, Anil Kumar, Vishal
Kumar, Nand Lal and others, abused
complainant and did criminal trespass into
his house. They assaulted him and, thereby,
damaged the househould goods. The
occurrence was instantly reported at local
Police Station, but to no avail. Thus, this
complaint, through Registered Post, was
sent to the Superintendent of Police, but that
too yielded no action. Hence, this complaint
was moved before the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate and on the basis of
testimonies,
these
applicants
were
summoned for offences, punishable, under
Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC.

5. In exercise of inherent power,
conferred by Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this
Court is not expected to analyze factual
evidence, which is to be placed during
trial before the Trial court. Prima facie,
there was evidence, which was recorded,
under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., on
the basis of which impugned summoning
order was passed.

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.

7. 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 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
2 All. Braj Lal Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
629
substantive as well as procedural matters. It
can as well be exercised in respect of
incidental
or
supplemental
power
irrespective of nature of proceedings".

8. 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".

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

10. In view of what has been
discussed above, this proceeding, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., lacks merits and
as such, this Application, under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., stands dismissed.

11. However, it is directed that if the
applicants 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.

12. For a period of 30 days from
today, no coercive action shall be taken
against the applicants. However, in case,
the applicants do not appear before the
Court below within the aforesaid period,
coercive action shall be taken against
them.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 629

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.07.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV JOSHI, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 42378 of 2018

Braj Lal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
In Person

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Moeez Uddin

A. Cr.P.C., 1973 - Section 482 - For
Cancellation of bail granted to opposite
party no. 2 & 3 -Maintainability of
Criminal Application under section 482
Cr.P.C. - when specific provision present
under section 439(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for cancellation of
bail - Present petition under section 482,
Cr.P.C. for that very purpose is not
maintainable.

The High Court while exercising jurisdiction
under
section
482,C.P.C.
is
empowered
enough to make orders in the nature as
contended by the applicant but it is equally