# Nahar Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 678
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-12
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 44378 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nahar-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45263
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482-In exercise of inherent power, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., High Court is not
expected to make a meticulous analysis
of factual aspect because the same is a
question to be gone into, during course of
trial, by the Trial court. (Para 5)

Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C
rejected. (E-3)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

678 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as
above.

11. 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)1ILR 678

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA MISHRA, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 44378 of 2019

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Vipin Chandra Pandey

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

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482-In exercise of inherent power, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., High Court is not
expected to make a meticulous analysis
of factual aspect because the same is a
question to be gone into, during course of
trial, by the Trial court. (Para 5)

Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C
rejected. (E-3)

List 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, Rep. 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 Bih. Vs. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ
1005: AIR 1989 SC 1

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

1. This Application, under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
has been filed by the Applicants, Nahar
Singh, Manmohan @ Teetu, Deepu @
Devendra and Manoj, with a prayer for
setting aside summoning order, dated
19.9.2019,
passed
by
the
Judicial
Magistrate,
Sadabad,
Hathras,
and,
thereby, entire criminal proceeding, in
Complaint Case No. 164 of 2018, Shashi
Prabha vs. Nahar Singh and others, under
Sections-452, 323 and 354 of IPC, Police
Station-Sahpau, District-Hathras

2. Learned counsel for applicants
argued that a civil suit was filed for
cancellation of sale deed, which was got
executed by the complainant and as a
result
of
the
same
this
malicious
prosecution, in misuse of process of law,
wherein, there is no medico legal report of
any injury, but, even this, summoning
order has been passed. Hence, for avoiding
abuse of process of law, this Application,
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been
filed, with above prayer.

3. Learned AGA, representing State
of U.P., has vehemently opposed this
Application.

4. From perusal of the complaint, it
is apparent that the reason for lodging this
complaint has been said in it, i.e., alleged
1 All. Nahar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
679
sale deed, which was got executed on
25.5.2017 from Ranvir Singh, whereupon,
accused persons did encroach over the
land, claiming it to be of theirs, for which
some proceeding before Sub Divisional
Magistrate,
concerned,
was
taken,
thenafter, this assault was made on
11.4.2018, with occurrence, reported, was
committed by those accused persons, by
way of committing criminal trespass in the
house of the complainant. This fact has
been narrated and reiterated, in the
statement, recorded, under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C., as well as under Section 202 of
Cr.P.C., in the enquiry made by the
Magistrate and the impugned summoning
order has been passed, on the basis of
above
evidence,
collected
by
the
Magistrate, which was perfectly well, in
accordance with law.

5. Hence, under all above facts and
circumstances, this Court, in exercise of
inherent power, under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., is not expected to make a
meticulous analysis of factual aspect
because the same is a question, to be gone
into, during course of trial, by the Trial
court.

6. 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 judgment, in the case
of 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 yet
another judgment, in the case of 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 the case of
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 the case
of 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
680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interference only when the complaint did
not disclose any offence or was frivolous
vexatious or oppressive" as well as in the
case of 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".Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
within the limits, propounded as above.

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

9. 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.

10. For a period of 30 days from
today, no coercive action shall be taken
against the applicants.

11. In case, if the applicants do not
appear before the Court below within the
aforesaid period, coercive action shall be
taken against them.
----------
(2020)1ILR 680

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 44383 of 2019

Saleem Khan & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Zafar Abbas, Sri Faheem Ahmad

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

A. Code of Criminal Procedure-Section
482-Previous litigation, in between the
parties, may be a malice for filing
criminal complaint or may be a cause for
occurrence, but all these are questions of
fact to be seen by the Trial court, during
course of trial, and this Court, in exercise
of inherent power, under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon
such
factual
aspects-Impugned
summoning order passed on the basis of
evidence collected by the Magistrate,
during
his
enquiry
requires
no
interference. (Para 4 & 5)

Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C
rejected. (E-3)

List 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. St., Rep. by Insp. of
Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296

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

6. St. of Bih. Vs. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ
1005:
AIR
1989
SC
1