# process of Court, Apex Court, in the case of Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar

- **Citation:** (2020) 11 ILRA 44
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-03-04
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 8803 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/process-of-court-apex-court-in-the-case-of-dhanlakshmi-v-r-prasana-kumar-45419
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 227- Section
228-
Rejection
of
application
for
discharge- At the stage of framing of
charge, all that is required is to see
whether a prima face case has been made
out. The question whether the charge
framed will eventually stand proved or not
can be determined only after evidence is
recorded. Pre trial acquittal, at the stage
of charge framing, is not permissible. Even
on the basis of strong suspicion, charge
can be framed.

At the stage of framing of Charge it has to be
seen only whether a prima facie case is made
out or not and even on the basis of strong
suspicion the court can frame the Charge.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section
482-
Cognizance
-
Challenged
in
a
previously instituted proceeding wherein,
it was held by this Court itself that it
cannot be said that there is no ground for
making out offence against applicant
herein. Hence, impugned order was well
within provisions of law, which does not
call for any interference by this Court, in
exercise of jurisdiction, conferred by
Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Criminal proceedings having been already
challenged through a prior criminal Application
and the same having been rejected, the Court in
the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction may not
reconsider the same proceedings in a
subsequent application.

Criminal Application rejected. (Para 6, 7, 8 ) (E-3)
11 All. Vinod Rawat Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
45
Case law/ Judgements relied:-

## Text

44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumstances and looking to the verdict of
the Apex Court in the case of Lavesh vs
State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012)
8 SCC 730, this Court finds no ground for
any indulgence to be granted to the
applicant.

6. 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".

7. 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.
----------
(2020)11ILR A44
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 8803 of 2020

Vinod Rawat ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ram Krishna Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 227- Section
228-
Rejection
of
application
for
discharge- At the stage of framing of
charge, all that is required is to see
whether a prima face case has been made
out. The question whether the charge
framed will eventually stand proved or not
can be determined only after evidence is
recorded. Pre trial acquittal, at the stage
of charge framing, is not permissible. Even
on the basis of strong suspicion, charge
can be framed.

At the stage of framing of Charge it has to be
seen only whether a prima facie case is made
out or not and even on the basis of strong
suspicion the court can frame the Charge.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section
482-
Cognizance
-
Challenged
in
a
previously instituted proceeding wherein,
it was held by this Court itself that it
cannot be said that there is no ground for
making out offence against applicant
herein. Hence, impugned order was well
within provisions of law, which does not
call for any interference by this Court, in
exercise of jurisdiction, conferred by
Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Criminal proceedings having been already
challenged through a prior criminal Application
and the same having been rejected, the Court in
the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction may not
reconsider the same proceedings in a
subsequent application.

Criminal Application rejected. (Para 6, 7, 8 ) (E-3)
11 All. Vinod Rawat Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
45
Case law/ Judgements relied:-

1. St. of H.P Vs Kishan Lal & ors., AIR 1987
Supreme Court 773

2. Palwinder Singh Vs Balwinder Singh, (2008)
14 Supreme Court Cases 508

(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, Vinod Rawat,
with a prayer for setting aside impugned
order, dated 6.1.2020, passed by the court of
Judicial
Magistrate,
Mathura,
in
Case
No.1243 of 2017 (State vs. Vinod Rawat),
arising out of Case Crime No.109 of 2016,
under Sections 494, 323, 498 and 506 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila
Thana, District Mathura, pending in the court
of Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.

2. Learned counsel for applicant
argued that a Discharge Application was
moved before the Trial court, which was
rejected by the impugned order, whereas,
there was no evidence for levelling charges
against the applicant. Informant has left
nuptial house on his own will. There was
no demand of dowry or cruelty with regard
to it. Marriage was of old standing, having
good understanding. False accusation was
levelled,
wherein,
above
Discharge
Application has been rejected. It was an
abuse of process of law. Hence, for
avoiding abuse of process of law and
securing ends of justice, this Application,
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been
filed, with above prayer.

3. Learned counsel for Opposite party
no.2 as well as learned AGA, representing
State of U.P., have vehemently opposed this
Application.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused materials on record.

5. An Application, being Application
U/S 482 No.23876 of 2018, Vinod Rawat and
3 others vs. State of U.P. and another, was
filed before this Court and this Court, while
passing order, dated 20.7.2018, has rejected
contention of Vinod Rawat, applicant herein,
that there is no accusation against him, rather,
it was held that perusal of materials on
record, and looking into the facts of the case,
at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence
has been made out against applicant no.1,
therein.

6. Meaning thereby, contention raised,
herein, in present proceeding, under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., was considered by this Court
in above proceeding and it was held that there
was no ground for not making out of offence
at this stage. Subsequently, Discharge
Application was filed, which was objected,
heard and decided.

7. Apex Court, in the case of State of
Himanchal Pradesh vs. Kishan Lal and
other, reported in AIR 1987 Supreme
Court 773, has propounded that at the
stage of framing of charge, all that is
required is to see whether a prima face case
has been made out. The question whether
the charge framed will eventually stand
proved or not can be determined only after
evidence is recorded. Deciding a case on
merit at charge framing stage when the
prosecution has got no opportunity to
adduce evidence is deprecated. Further,
Apex Court, in the case of Palwinder
Singh vs. Balwinder Singh, reported in
(2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 508, has
held that pre trial acquittal, at the stage of
charge framing, is not permissible. Even on
the basis of strong suspicion, charge can be
framed.
46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. In present case, informant, right
from the stage of registration of first
information
report
till
recording
of
statement, under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.,
reiterated accusation made in the first
information report, which was supported by
other witnesses, too, on the basis of which
cognizance was taken. This was challenged
in a previously instituted proceeding, being
Application U/S 482 No.23876 of 2018
(Supra), wherein, it was held by this Court
itself that it cannot be said that there is no
ground for making out offence against
Vinod Rawat, applicant herein. Hence,
impugned order was well within provisions
of law, which does not call for any
interference by this Court, in exercise of
jurisdiction, conferred by Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.

9. 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)11ILR A46
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 11017 of 2006

Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri J.P. Mishra, Sri Ashish Nigam

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri K.C. Saxena

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Nature and
scope- The power under Section 482 to
quash proceedings should not be used
mechanically or routinely, but with care
and caution, only when a clear case for
quashing is made out and failure to
interfere would lead to a miscarriage of
justice - The expression "rarest of rare
cases" is not used in the sense in which it
is used with reference to punishment for
offences under Section 302 IPC, but to
emphasize that the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR or criminal
proceedings should be used sparingly and
with circumspection- High Court should
not exercise jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC embarking upon an enquiry into
whether evidence is reliable or not or
whether on reasonable apprehension of
evidence, allegations are not sustainable,
or decide function of Trial Judge- If basic
ingredients
of
offfences
alleged
are
altogether absent, criminal proceedings
can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

It is settled law that the inherent power u/s 482
of the Cr.Pc should be exercised sparingly, with
caution
and
circumspection
and
without
entering into the factual aspects of the case.
Only where either the failure to interfere would
lead to miscarriage of justice or where the basic
ingredients of the alleged offences are wholly
missing, that the Court should exercise its
inherent power.

Criminal Application rejected. (Para 12, 16,
17, 21) (E-3)

Case law/ Judgements relied upon:-

1. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors., 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335

2. Google India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Visakha Industries &
ors., AIR 2020 SC 350

3. Jeffrey J. Diermeier & ors.Vs St. of W.B &
ors., (2010) 6 SCC 243

4. Som Mittal Vs St. of Kar., (2008) 3 SCC 753