# Manoj Kumar Verma & others v. State of U.P. & another

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 98
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-09-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 2284 of 2001
- **Bench:** K.N. Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-kumar-verma-others-v-state-of-u-p-another-40309
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, S. 482summoning order-prayer for quashing
of-process issued on a complaint-based
on actual occurrence-and not as a
counter
blast.-supported
by
two
witnesses- held, evidence on record
sufficient to make out a prima facie casecannot be interfered.

Held- Para 6

On the facts of the present case, there is
a report to Senior Superintendent of
Police
and
the
complainant
has
examined herself and the two witnesses.
In her statement, she has supported the
allegations set forth in the complaint.
The contention of the complainant was
also supported by two witnesses, who
had
witnessed
the
occurrence.
The
evidence available on the record is
sufficient to make out a prima facie case
against the applicants.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2001 SC 2960
1976 (13) ACC 224 SC

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
98
SC 3571; Hari Singh vs. Governor, U.P.
2003 (2) UPLBEC1456 etc.

17. In State Bank of India vs. T.J.
Paul, AIR 1999 SC 1994 the Supreme
Court held that even when mala fide and
corrupt practice is not alleged against the
employee he may be held guilty of
misconduct if he acts in a manner which
jeopardises the interest of the employer.
In that case the allegation was that the
respondent
granted
a
bank
loan
negligently and the bank suffered a
serious loss. The Supreme Court held that
even if this was not a case of
insubordination or disobedience of orders
of the superior officer it was an act
prejudicial to the bank and there was
gross negligence which involved serious
loss to the bank, and hence it is a case of
misconduct.

18. In the present case even though
there may not be any specific allegation
of corruption against the petitioner, in our
opinion he certainly acted in a manner
causing serious loss to the Government
exchequer by the manner he disposed of
the stamp cases. As found by the enquiry
officer the petitioner disposed of the
stamp cases in utter violation of the
provisions of the Stamp Act and Stamp
Manual. From this a reasonable inference
can be drawn that he passed such orders
for extraneous considerations.

The findings recorded by the enquiry
officer are findings of fact and we cannot
interfere with them in writ jurisdiction.

The petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.9.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE K.N. SINHA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 2284 of 2001

Manoj Kumar Verma & others ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Haider Zaidi
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Dhamendra Singhal
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure, S. 482summoning order-prayer for quashing
of-process issued on a complaint-based
on actual occurrence-and not as a
counter
blast.-supported
by
two
witnesses- held, evidence on record
sufficient to make out a prima facie casecannot be interfered.

Held- Para 6

On the facts of the present case, there is
a report to Senior Superintendent of
Police
and
the
complainant
has
examined herself and the two witnesses.
In her statement, she has supported the
allegations set forth in the complaint.
The contention of the complainant was
also supported by two witnesses, who
had
witnessed
the
occurrence.
The
evidence available on the record is
sufficient to make out a prima facie case
against the applicants.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2001 SC 2960
1976 (13) ACC 224 SC

(Delivered by Hon'ble K.N. Sinha, J.)

1. By means of present application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants
have prayed for quashing of the order
dated 13.12.2000 in Criminal Case no.
879 of 2000.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Mukhtar Ahsan V. State of U.P. and others
99
2. The brief facts giving rise to the
present application, are that the applicant
no. 1 was married to opposite party no. 2
on 12.11.1997. Immediately after the
marriage, the opposite party no. 2 started
insisting to live separately from the family
members. As the applicant no. 1 has to
look after the other family members hence
he did not yield to the demand of opposite
party no. 1 it resulted in continuous
tension between husband and wife. On
7thJuly, 1999, the father of the opposite
party no. 2 alongwith other family
members came to Kanpur and asked
applicant no. 1 to send the opposite party
no. 2 to Aligarh. The applicant no. 1
asked them to stay at Kanpur for a day or
two, when he comes back after bringing
her mother who had gone out of city.
When the applicant no. 1 returned back,
he found that the respondent no. 1 has left
the house alongwith jewelry and cash etc.
The applicant no. 1 filed a report at police
station Naubasta, District Kanpur and
when the police did not take any action
then applicant no. 1 moved an application
to Senior Superintendent of Police,
Kanpur. The Senior Superintendent of
Police, Kanpur ordered an inquiry into the
matter and when the opposite party no. 2
came to know about the inquiry report,
she lodged complaint on 31.10.2000 and
the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, IV, Aligarh summoned the
applicants by his order dated 13.12.2000.
This complaint was lodged after about
one and half years of the alleged incident
and as a counter blast of the application
moved by the applicant no. 1 to the Senior
Superintendent of Police. The opposite
party no. 2 filed a counter affidavit in the
court denying the allegations in the
affidavit. Further stating that no inquiry
was made by the Kanpur Police and the
report dated 30.10.2000 may be in
collusion with the husband of the
answering respondent. The complaint is
based on the actual occurrence and it is
not a counter blast to the alleged
application to the Senior Superintendent
of Police by applicant no. 1.

3. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and the learned A.G.A. The
complaint was filed about the fifteen
months prior to the date of occurrence, as
stated in paragraph 5 of the complaint and
also in respect of an occurrence about one
and quarter months prior to the filing of
the complaint. The respondent no. 2 Smt.
Shashi examined herself under Section
200 Cr.P.C. and also examined witnesses
Phool Singh and Kali Charan, the father
of respondent no. 2, under section 202
Cr.P.C. on the basis of this statement,
order dated 13.12.2000 was passed
summoning the applicants as accused.
Section 204 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure lays down that if in the opinion
of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an
offence there is sufficient ground for
proceeding....'. It simply means that the
Magistrate has to see if there is sufficient
ground to proceed or not. In AIR 2001,
SC page 2960 S.N. Palnikar and others
Vs. State of Bihar and another the term
'sufficient ground' has been explained to
mean the satisfaction that a prima facie
case is made out against the accused and
no sufficient ground for the purposes of
conviction.

4. Thus the court has to see whether
prima facie case against the accused is
made out or not. This inquiry is only for
the limited purpose for ascertaining of
truth or falsity.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
100
5. The Apex Court in Smt.
Nagawwa
Versus
Veeranna
Shivalingappa Nonjalagi and others,
reported in 1976 (13) ACC 224 SC has
laid down the principle that the enquiry
under section 202 Cr.P.C. is limited only
to ascertainment of truth or falsehood of
the allegations made in the complaint-
Firstly, on the material placed by the
complainant and secondly, for limited
purpose of finding out whether a prima
facie case for issuing of process is made
out or not.
6. On the facts of the present case,
there is a report to Senior Superintendent
of Police and the complainant has
examined herself and the two witnesses.
In her statement, she has supported the
allegations set forth in the complaint. The
contention of the complainant was also
supported by two witnesses, who had
witnessed the occurrence. The evidence
available on the record is sufficient to
make out a prima facie case against the
applicants.

7. Consequently, I find no merit in
the application and it is hereby dismissed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.9.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.C. DEEPAK, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2715 of 2003

Prashant Tomar

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Krishna Capoor
Sri Jagdev Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Vivek Kumar Singh
Sri Ajay Kumar Singh
A.G.A.

Criminal
Procedure
Code-Criminal
revision-against the order passed under
section
437/439
refusing
bail-such
orders do not decide any question of law
or question of law and facts- revision
held- not maintainable.

Held- Para 4

The
orders
under
section
437/439
Cr.P.C. are not revisable orders. No
revision under the Cr.P.C. lies. They are
by nature interlocutory orders. These
orders do not decide any question of law
or mixed question of law or facts or any
issue in any proceeding under the Cr.P.C.
These orders simply refer to bail, such
application can be made at any stage,
during investigation, during commitment
proceeding or any time during trial,
however, they do not decide any fact in
issue in any inguiry or trial, therefore,
these orders can not be put even in the
category of an interlocutory orders. In
this view of matter no revision is
permissible to any accused under the
law.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.C. Deepak, J.)

1. This is a criminal revision against
the order dated 17.6.2003 passed by the
CJM Baghpat in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application
of
Prashant
Tomar
(Revisionist) in Case Crime No. 39 of
2003,
under
section
302/34,
120
I.P.C.BPS GRP Baraut, district Baghpat
and the order of learned Sessions Judge
dated
25.7.2003
rejecting
his
bail
application no. 381 of 2003.

2. The facts which emerge from the
record are that Prashant Tomar is an
accused in case crime no. 39 of 2003,