# Narayan Giri v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 371
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-09-24
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 12058 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narayan-giri-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45248
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code,1862-Sections 323, 504, 506,
419,
420,
406-quashing
of-entire
proceeding- Husband of the complainant
was duped by committing fraud by the
accused
persons-
contention
of
the
complaint stood corroborated by the
witnesses
examined
and
complainant
statement disclosing connivance of all the
accused.(Para 6)
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B. 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. ,To
secure
ends
of
justice,
inherent
jurisdiction has to be exercised carefully
by the tests specifically laid down in the
section itself.(Para 8 )

B. Husband of the complainant was duped by
committing fraud by the accused persons,
thereby
Tractor
was
sold
by
way
of
hypothecation with State Bank of India, was
held to be with material defects and it was
taken by the agency concerned and neither it
was restored nor was repaired by replacement
of engine as was directed by the District
Consumer Redressal Forum and this contention
of the complaint stood corroborated by the
witnesses examined and complainant statement
disclosing connivance of all the accused.(Para 6)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

10 All. Narayan Giri Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
371
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. Accordingly, there remains
nothing
for
any
indulgence
in
this
proceeding. The prayer for quashing
summoning order as well as proceeding of
the aforesaid complaint case is refused and
the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby
dismissed.

11. However, in the interest of justice,
it is provided that if the applicants appear
and surrender before the court below within
thirty days from today and apply for bail,
then the bail application of the applicants
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
judgment 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 thirty days from
today or till the disposal of the application
for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no
coercive action shall be taken against the
applicants.

13. However, in case, the applicants
do not appear before the Court below
within the aforesaid period, coercive action
shall be taken against them.
----------

(2020)10ILR A371
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.09.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 12058 of 2020

Narayan Giri ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sher Bahadur Yadav

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

A. Criminal law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code,1862-Sections 323, 504, 506,
419,
420,
406-quashing
of-entire
proceeding- Husband of the complainant
was duped by committing fraud by the
accused
persons-
contention
of
the
complaint stood corroborated by the
witnesses
examined
and
complainant
statement disclosing connivance of all the
accused.(Para 6)
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B. 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. ,To
secure
ends
of
justice,
inherent
jurisdiction has to be exercised carefully
by the tests specifically laid down in the
section itself.(Para 8 )

B. Husband of the complainant was duped by
committing fraud by the accused persons,
thereby
Tractor
was
sold
by
way
of
hypothecation with State Bank of India, was
held to be with material defects and it was
taken by the agency concerned and neither it
was restored nor was repaired by replacement
of engine as was directed by the District
Consumer Redressal Forum and this contention
of the complaint stood corroborated by the
witnesses examined and complainant statement
disclosing connivance of all the accused.(Para 6)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

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.,Rept. By Inspector 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 Applicant, Narayan
Giri, with a prayer for setting aside entire
proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case
No. 1918 of 2017, Chameli Devi vs.
Narayan and others, under Sections 323,
504, 506, 419, 420 and 406 of Indian Penal
Code,
Police
Station-Tarnva,
District
Azamgarh, including summoning order,
dated 30.1.2018, passed by the court of
Judicial
Magistrate,
court
no.16,
Azamgarh.

2. Learned counsel for applicants
argued that the applicant is not having any
concern
with
alleged
occurrence,
as
mentioned in the complaint. He is merely
an agent and in a previous proceeding,
which stood dismissed against Opposite
party nos. 3, 4 and 5, and application is
Opposite party no.4 in said proceeding.
Order, so passed, has been filed at page
nos. 29 and 30 of this proceeding and after
this order having been passed, this
complaint
has
been
filed
by
the
complainant. The warranty was of one year
and alleged complaint was made by the
complainant's husband after lapse of above
period. Nowhere any other complaint was
there. Hence, this summoning order as well
as entire proceeding of complaint case is
under abuse of process of law and,
therefore, this Application with above
prayer.

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

4. Having heard learned counsel for
both sides and gone through materials
placed on record, it is apparent that a case
was filed before the District Consumer
Reddressal Forum against the agency of
10 All. Narayan Giri Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
373
Sonalika Tractor, its Proprietor, Agent,
through whom, said Tractor was purchased,
the Manager of the Branch of State Bank of
India, Branch Azamgarh, where tractor was
hypothecated
and
sub-agency-Alam
Automobile, Naraoli, Azamgarh, with the
same contention as is there in present
complaint. It was complaint number 60 of
2011, filed on 12.7.2011 and decided on
26.11.2016,
wherein,
claim
of
the
applicant, Jawahar Lal Chauhan, was
decreed against Dev Automobile, i.e.,
Authorised Dealer of Sonalika Tractor,
Tractor Sales Services, Parts, Bhitarimore
Main Road, Syedpur, Ghazipurpur, through
its Manager, Sudhansu Singh.

5. There had been a direction with
regard to the Tractor concerned. As District
Consumer Reddressal Forum is not a
criminal court, it cannot take cognizance
for criminal offence, but, it is for making
reddressal of damage caused to consumer,
under Consumer Dispute Reddressal Act,
and contention of the present complainant
was
decreed.
Hence,
by
any
order
regarding non-award of decree against
other
defendant,
in
above
consumer
dispute, the offence is not affected.

6. Present complaint is with regard to
same sequence of occurrence, wherein
husband of the complainant was duped by
committing fraud by the accused persons,
thereby, Tractor was sold by way of
hypothecation with State Bank of India,
was held to be with material defects and it
was taken by the agency concerned and
neither it was restored nor was repaired by
replacement of engine as was directed by
the District Consumer Reddressal Forum
and this contention of the complaint stood
corroborated by the witnesses, examined,
under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Complainant,
in her statement, recorded, under Section
200 of Cr.P.C., has categorically said
connivance of all the accused persons,
including present applicant in above
fraudulent activities and criminal breach of
trust. On the basis of all these evidences,
collected by the Magistrate, in its enquiry,
impugned order for summoning of Narayan
Giri, Sudhanshu Singh and Jugunu Singh,
for offences, under Section 323, 504, 506,
419, 420 and 406 of I.P.C. is there.

7. There appears to be no illegality or
irregularity apparent on the face of record,
warranting interference, in exercise of
power under its inherent jurisdiction by this
Court.

8. 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
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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".

9. 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
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.

10. 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)10ILR A374
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 12648 of 2020

Balvir Singh @ Shintu Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Kamal Kishor Mishra

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

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 & U.P.
Gangster
and
Anti
Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act,1986-Section
3(1)-
quashing of- entire proceeding-trial court
rejected
discharge
application-accused
had criminal antecedent-acquittal in any
criminal case does not delete criminal
antecedent-merit is to be appreciated on
the basis of evidence within the domain of
trial
court-
Factual
correctness
or
incorrectness or appreciation of same
cannot be made, under Section 482, in
exercise of inherent power-Meticulous
analysis of facts and evidence at the time
of framing of charges may lead prejudice
against fair trial.(Para 5 to 7)
B. 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. To
prevent abuse of the process of the Court,