# Madari Singh @ Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 399
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-04
- **Case number:** U/S 482/3783/407 No. 1101 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/madari-singh-shiv-shankar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46883
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 307 - Attempt to murder ,
Section 34 - Acts done by several persons
in
furtherance
of
common
intention,
Section 506- punishment for criminal
intimidation , Code of Criminal Procedure,
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1973 - Section 204 - issue process ,
Section 207 - Supply to the accused of
copy
of
police
report
and
other
documents, Section 483 - Duty of High
court
to
exercise
continuous
superintendence over courts of judicial
Magistrates - court of revision / court of
sessions burdened with duty to ensure the
compliance of High Court's order with
regard to hearing and disposal of the
application for discharge through counsel
- Both the courts below fell into doing
technical
disposal
than
to
ensure
imparting justice in view of the High
Court's order.(Para-14)

Non-bailable warrant wrongly issued against the
applicant - application filed before High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.- by order of Court
dated 22.4.2019 - liberty to move application for
discharge before the trial court - application for
discharge before the trial court - rejected -
ground - judicially triable by the Sessions Court
- revision - ground - court below is looking after
the case as a complaint case and as the matter
pertains to warrant cases which are triable by
the court of sessions - Another application was
moved by the applicants for their discharge -
court of Sessions dismissed the application -
ground - case is not yet committed to court of
Sessions by the Magistrate - application not
maintainable.

HELD: - The present application moved by the
accused-applicant is, thus, maintainable to enforce
the earlier order of this Court dated 22.4.2019 so
as to prevent the abuse of process of the Court as
the court of Magistrate after rejection of revision
has issued Non-bailable Warrant against the
accused-applicants. (Para -15)

Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of.
(E-6)

## Text

3 All. Madari Singh @ Shiv Shankar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
399
adjudicating a petition filed under Section
482 CrPC1.

9. Moreover, the High Court was
aware that one of the witnesses mentioned
that the deceased informed him about the
harassment meted out by Respondent Nos.1
to 3 which she was not able to bear and
hence wanted to commit suicide. The High
Court committed an error in quashing
criminal proceedings by assessing the
statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C.

10. We have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the matter. The
High Court ought not to have quashed the
proceedings at this stage, scuttling a fullfledged trial in which Respondent Nos.1 to
3 would have a fair opportunity to prove
their innocence."(Emphasis supplied)

20. In view of the aforesaid, this
Court finds that the submissions made by
the applicant's learned counsel call for
adjudication on pure questions of fact
which may adequately be adjudicated upon
only by the trial court and while doing so
even the submissions made on points of
law can also be more appropriately gone
into by the trial court in this case. This
Court does not deem it proper, and
therefore cannot be persuaded to have a
pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A
threadbare discussion of various facts and
circumstances, as they emerge from the
allegations made against the accused, is
being purposely avoided by the Court for
the reason, lest the same might cause any
prejudice to either side during trial. But it
shall suffice to observe that the perusal of
the F.I.R. and the material collected by the
Investigating Officer on the basis of which
the charge sheet has been submitted makes
out a prima facie case against the accused
at this stage and there appear to be
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. I do not find any justification to
quash the charge sheet or the proceedings
against the applicants arising out of them as
the case does not fall in any of the
categories recognized by the Apex Court
which may justify their quashing. All the
judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for the applicants referred to above
are clearly distinguishable in the facts of
the present case.

21. The prayer for quashing the
impugned charge-sheet as well as the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid State case are
refused, as I do not see any abuse of the
court's process at this pre-trial stage.

22. The present application under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
is,
accordingly,
rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2021)03ILR A399
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

U/S 482/3783/407 No. 1101 of 2021

Madari Singh @ Shiv Shankar Singh
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Amit Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 307 - Attempt to murder ,
Section 34 - Acts done by several persons
in
furtherance
of
common
intention,
Section 506- punishment for criminal
intimidation , Code of Criminal Procedure,
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1973 - Section 204 - issue process ,
Section 207 - Supply to the accused of
copy
of
police
report
and
other
documents, Section 483 - Duty of High
court
to
exercise
continuous
superintendence over courts of judicial
Magistrates - court of revision / court of
sessions burdened with duty to ensure the
compliance of High Court's order with
regard to hearing and disposal of the
application for discharge through counsel
- Both the courts below fell into doing
technical
disposal
than
to
ensure
imparting justice in view of the High
Court's order.(Para-14)

Non-bailable warrant wrongly issued against the
applicant - application filed before High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.- by order of Court
dated 22.4.2019 - liberty to move application for
discharge before the trial court - application for
discharge before the trial court - rejected -
ground - judicially triable by the Sessions Court
- revision - ground - court below is looking after
the case as a complaint case and as the matter
pertains to warrant cases which are triable by
the court of sessions - Another application was
moved by the applicants for their discharge -
court of Sessions dismissed the application -
ground - case is not yet committed to court of
Sessions by the Magistrate - application not
maintainable.

HELD: - The present application moved by the
accused-applicant is, thus, maintainable to enforce
the earlier order of this Court dated 22.4.2019 so
as to prevent the abuse of process of the Court as
the court of Magistrate after rejection of revision
has issued Non-bailable Warrant against the
accused-applicants. (Para -15)

Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of.
(E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar
Srivastav, J.)

1. The case is called out.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Amit Tripathi, Advocate and learned
A.G.A. for the State, Sri S.P. Tiwari,
Advocate are present.

3. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is moved on behalf of
the applicant to quash the entire proceeding
of the Case No.261/2020, Case Crime
No.127/2003 under Sections 307/34, 506
I.P.C., Police Station- Hasanganj, District-
Unnao, the order dated 18.2.2021 passed by
the learned court below i.e., Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Unnao by
which the learned court below has wrongly
issued the non-bailable warrant against the
applicant, the order dated 4.11.2020 passed
by
learned
court
below
in
Case
No.261/2020 under Section 307/34, 506
IPC, Police Station- Hasanganj, District-
Unnao, the order dated 18.12.2020 passed
by learned Session Court, Unnao in
Criminal Revision No.63/2020 as well as
the order dated 15.2.2021 passed by
Session Judge, Unnao in Criminal Misc.
Case No.134/2021 and compliance for the
order dated 22.4.2019 passed by this
Hon'ble Court in Criminal Misc. Case No.
U/S 482 No.4261 of 2009.

4. In para-2 of the application, the
applicant has himself discloses that earlier
also in the same matter an application was
filed before this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
The
said
para-2
is
quoted
hereunder:-

"That it is further prayed that this
Hon'ble court may kindly be passed a
suitable order for compliance of the order
dated 22.4.2019 passed by this Hon'ble
court in Criminal Misc. case/under Section
482 No.4261 of 2009. The copy of the order
dated 22/04/2019 passed by this Hon'ble
court is being annexed herewith and
marked
as
Annexure
No.2
to
this
application."
3 All. Madari Singh @ Shiv Shankar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
401

5. The Annexure No.2 is the order of
this Court dated 22.4.2019 in aforesaid
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., of
which para-3 and 4, relevant for the
purpose of the present application are
quoted hereunder:-

"3. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that he would like to file
an application for discharge under the
provisions of Cr.P.C., to which learned
counsel for the State, does not have any
objection.

4. Accordingly, the petitioners
are granted liberty to file an application in
conformity with the provisions of Cr.P.C.,
within a period of two weeks from today.
After the said application is filed, learned
trial Court is directed to dispose of the
same within a period of thirty days
thereafter. The petitioners are also granted
liberty to appear through his counsel. Till
expiry of the aforesaid period, no coercive
steps shall be taken against them."

6. Pursuant to the order of the Court
as to the liberty to move application for
discharge before the trial court, was sought
to be availed by the applicants. They
moved an application on 6.5.2019 before
the court of Judicial Magistrate, Unnao
through counsel, wherein the case was
pending. In view of the order dated
22.4.2019 of this Court, the applicants were
given protection from coercive action for
30 days from the date of order. The said
application was rejected by the court of
Magistrate on 4.11.2020 which is made
Annexure No.9 to the present application
on the ground that the applicants have been
summoned under Sections 307/34, 506
I.P.C. which is judicially triable by the
Sessions Court, as such, he has no
jurisdiction
to
decide
the
discharge
application.

7. Against the said order, applicants
preferred a revision which was finally
decided on 18.12.2020 on the ground that
learned court below is looking after the
case as a complaint case and as the matter
pertains to warrant cases which are triable
by the court of sessions, as such, he has no
jurisdiction
to
decide
the
discharge
application and the order suffers no vice.

8. Another application was moved by
the applicants for their discharge, according
to aforesaid order of revisional court under
section 227 of the Cr.P.C. before the
Session court. Learned court of Sessions
dismissed the application on 15.2.2021 on
the simple ground that case is not yet
committed to court of Sessions by the
Magistrate.

9.

Learned
counsel
for
the
complainant, Sri Y.S. Srivastava, Advocate
appearing with Vakalatnama executed in
his favour by the complainant, the same is
taken on record. Office is directed to get it
registered and duly place on record.

10.

Learned
counsel
for
the
complainant argued as to the maintainability
of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
before the Court on the ground that the same
is misconceived and the sole purpose of
moving the application is to stifle the
bonafide proceeding of the court below in
case crime no.127/2003, under Sections
307/34 and 506 I.P.C. Learned counsel
further drew attention towards that fact that
earlier vide order dated 22.4.2019, the
accused-applicants were given protection of
30 days with liberty to move application for
their discharge before the trial court and their
application from both the courts below was
rejected, as such, they are not entitled to any
further protection from the process of the
Court.
402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant,
learned
counsel
for
the
complainant, learned A.G.A. and perused
the materials placed on record.

12. The High Court under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is vested with
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
which shall not be deemed to be limited or
affected by any other provisions of the
Code itself, to make such order as may be
necessary to give affect to any order of this
Court or to protect abuse of process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice.

13. While dealing with the application
for discharge, moved by the applicants,
before the court of Magistrate, the
impugned order, passed on the application
by the Magistrate dated 4.11.2020 pursuant
to the order of this Court dated 22.4.2019
in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
of the applicants itself discloses that the
Magistrate was well conversant and known
to its jurisdiction that, the matter pending
before it, wherein application for discharge
was moved from the offences under
Sections 307/34, 506 I.P.C. are not triable
by it and exclusively triable by the court of
Sessions,
then
also,
without
having
jurisdiction, decided the application. When
the order was challenged into revision, the
court of Sessions, though observed in its
order dated 18.12.2020 that, in order of the
High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the
direction to dispose of the "Discharge
application" was to the trial court, then
also, the court of Sessions dealing with the
revision kicked back the matter to the court
of
Magistrate
again.
The
court
of
Magistrate, who was sitting over the
matter, despite taking cognizance of
offences, finding them exclusively triable
by the court of Sessions, did not commit
the matter to the court of Sessions.

14. Section 204 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides, if in
the opinion of the Magistrate taking
cognizance of an offence there is sufficient
ground for proceeding, he has to issue
process in due course. In the present case
also the Magistrate issued the process
accordingly. In response whereof, the
accused-applicants moved an application
before the High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and by virtue of order dated
22.4.2019, the accused-applicants put their
appearance before the Court of Magistrate
through counsel alongwith the application
for their discharge. The Magistrate was
required to ensure the compliance of order
of the Court in letter and spirit, with regard
to hearing on discharge application and was
not expected to be technical in dismissing
the application itself on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction. The court of Magistrate was
duty bound to honour the order of the Court
by committing the case to the court of
Sessions alongwith the application making
compliance of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
so that obedience and compliance of the
High Court's order could be ensured.
Learned court of revision was also required
to call for administratively the concerned
Magistrate, why he is not passing the order
of committal of the proceeding than to sit
over the application for discharge without
having jurisdiction for disposing the same.
The court of revision / court of sessions
also burdened with duty to ensure the
compliance of High Court's order with
regard to hearing and disposal of the
application for discharge through counsel.
Both the courts below fell into doing
technical disposal than to ensure imparting
justice in view of the High Court's order.
3 All. Vidya Sagar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
403

15. The present application moved by
the accused-applicant is, thus, maintainable
to enforce the earlier order of this Court
dated 22.4.2019 so as to prevent the abuse
of process of the Court as the court of
Magistrate after rejection of revision has
issued Non-bailable Warrant against the
accused-applicants.

16. In exercise of it's inherent power,
the Court deems fit in the circumstances of
the case to issue suo moto direction to the
Court of Magistrate under Section 483
Cr.P.C. to commit the Case Crime
No.127/2003 under Section 307/34, 506
I.P.C., Police Station- Hasanganj, District -
Unnao forthwith without any further delay,
complying the requirements under Section
207 Cr.P.C. alongwith the application of
the accused applicants moved for the
purpose of their discharge.

17. The accused-applicants are
directed to appear through counsel before
the Court of Sessions on 15.3.2021 and
they are at liberty to renew their prayer for
discharge from offences through a fresh
application before the Sessions Court (trial
court).

18. The Non-bailable warrant issued
by the Court of Magistrate in Case
No.261/2020, Case Crime No.127/2003
under Sections 307/34, 506 I.P.C., Police
Station- Hasanganj, District- Unnao shall
remain in abeyance till then.

19. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of,
accordingly.

20. The Deputy Registrar (Criminal)
is directed to communicate the order
promptly, in addition to normal course of
communication as prescribed in the rules of
the court through e-mail also, to the
Sessions Court and also to the Court of
Magistrate for compliance. The compliance
report be ensured to place before the court.
----------
(2021)03ILR A403
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1298 of 2006

Vidya Sagar Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Paramatma Rai, Sri A.B. Saran, Sri Amit
Kumar Singh, Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, Sri
Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sri S.P.S. Parmar, Sri
Shailendra Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri D.B. Yadav

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 260, 263-Ka, 419, 420,
407, 468, 471 , exercise of powers under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is the exception
and not the rule - evidence of accusedapplicants or defence evidence and any
question of fact cannot be determined at
the stage under section 482 Cr.P.C. -
Veracity or truthfulness for the statement
or any documents can only be adjudicated
after the evidence is adduced by the party
in trial court. (Para - 6,7)

Accused-applicants
filed
fake
stamp
of
respective amounts - on which Vendors name
was disclosed as Randhir Singh, license no. 321
- all these stamps were found forged in an
inquiry - they were not found to be issued from
the Treasury - Signature and seal on the stamp
papers were also found fabricated - FIR was
registered - Investigation came to be conducted