# Pushpendra Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 203 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2019-12-03 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 41546 of 2019 - **Bench:** Anil Kumar-Ix - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pushpendra-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45331 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote 204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 & Indian Penal Code,1860- Section 406-quashing of- summoning orderFactual correctness or incorrectness or appreciation of same cannot be made-at this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid downdisputed defence of the accused cannot be considered while exercising power u/s 482.(Para 6, 7) B. The grounds on which power u/s 482 can be exercised basically are (1) where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint, even if they are taken at their fact value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence (2) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence (3) where there is express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure or the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceedings. But this power has to be exercised in a rare case and with great caution. (Para 6) In the Instant case, complaint filed by the complainant against the applicants after 16 years of the marriage for misappropriation of "Streedhan". At the time of marriage, ornaments received by the applicants did not return back after reaching to her in-law's house. (Para 3) The application is dismissed. (E-6) List of cases cited:- ## Text 6 All. Pushpendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 203 29.9.2013, they have tried to cause injuries to the complainant/opposite party no.2 and they used to demand a dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and also caused physical injuries to victim. The statements of PW-1 and PW-2 corroborated the allegations made by the complainant/opposite party no.2. 17. The learned court below after considering the contents of the complaint as well as the statements recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. found sufficient ground for proceedings and accordingly summoned all the applicants u/s 204 Cr.P.C. 18. In the present case, the allegations made in the complaint case are not general in nature rather the allegations are specific and even the earlier incident has also been specifically mentioned in the complaint as well as the statements. Present case is not a case where it could be said that general allegations are made against the applicants rather this case falls under the categories of cases where even the Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra (Supra) has directed to adopt a cautious approach. 19. Recently, the Apex Court in Arun Singh and others vs. State of U.P.; 2020 SCC Online SC 164 in similar circumstances has declined to quash criminal proceedings u/s 3/4 D.P. Act. For reference, para 30 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinafter :- "30. A reading of the above provisions shows that essential ingredients of the offence under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are that the persons accused should have made demand directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardians of a bride or a bridegroom as the case may be any dowry and/or abets the giving and taking of dowry. The allegations of the F.I.R. quoted hereinabove clearly go to show that a demand of dowry of Rs.5 Lakhs was made by the appellants from the complainants and thus it can not be said that no offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against the appellants. There being direct allegations of demand of Dowry in the First Information Report, the allegations prima-facie constitute a commission of an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act and thus the charges leveled against the appellants under Section 3/4 of the said Act, are not liable to be quashed." (emphasis supplied) 20. In view of above discussion, it is my considered opinion that present case is a case where the inherent powers should not be used to stifle or scuttle the legitimate prosecution. 21. In view of the above, the present application being sans merit, accordingly dismissed. ---------- (2020)06ILR A203 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.12.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-IX, J. Application U/S 482 No. 41546 of 2019 Pushpendra Singh & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicants: Sri Sri Anwar Hussain, Sri Sukhvir Singh Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. 204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 & Indian Penal Code,1860- Section 406-quashing of- summoning orderFactual correctness or incorrectness or appreciation of same cannot be made-at this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid downdisputed defence of the accused cannot be considered while exercising power u/s 482.(Para 6, 7) B. The grounds on which power u/s 482 can be exercised basically are (1) where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint, even if they are taken at their fact value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence (2) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence (3) where there is express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure or the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceedings. But this power has to be exercised in a rare case and with great caution. (Para 6) In the Instant case, complaint filed by the complainant against the applicants after 16 years of the marriage for misappropriation of "Streedhan". At the time of marriage, ornaments received by the applicants did not return back after reaching to her in-law's house. (Para 3) The application is dismissed. (E-6) List of cases cited:- 1. Monika Kumar Vs St. Of U.P. (2008) 8 SCC 781 2. U.O.I Vs Prakash P. Hinduja & anr. AIR (2003) SC 2612 3. R.P. Kapur Vs St. Of Punj AIR (1960) SC 8664. Bhajan Lal Vs St. Of Har. (1992) SCC (Cr.) 426 (Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX, J.) Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for State. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash impugned summoning order dated 20.07.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad and further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2916 of 2018 (Smt. Neetu Singh Vs. Pushpendra and others) under Section 406 I.P.C., P.S. South, District-Firozabad pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad. 3. The brief facts of the case is that opposite party no. 2 was married with applicant no. 1 on 06.03.2002. Applicant nos. 2 and 3 are father and mother of applicant no. 1 respectively. At the time of marriage ornaments received by opposite party no. 2 as "Streedhan" was entrusted to the appellant nos. 1 and 2 and it was ensured by them that they will return it back to opposite party no. 2 after reaching to her-in-laws house. They misappropriated her "Streedhan" and handed over to appellant no. 3. On complaint moved by opposite party no. 2, statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of two witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and by impugned order dated 20.07.2019 appellants have been summoned by learned Magistrate under Section 406 I.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that no offence is disclosed against the applicants and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further argued that applicant no. 1 was married to opposite party no. 2 but due to her bad conduct and ill behaviour with family members, on his petition ex-parte divorce 6 All. Lalloo Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. 205 decree has been passed in his favour by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad on 29.09.2018 and after this ex-parte decree he did his second marriage on 05.10.2018 and in counterblast of it opposite party no. 2 has filed complaint against the applicants after 16 years of the marriage. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicants and submitted that at this state it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. Impugned summoning order has been passed on sufficient ground. 6. The applicants have been summoned on the basis of allegation made in complaint and statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of two witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. In the case of Monika Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781, it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down under section itself. In the case of Union of India Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another reported in A.I.R. 2003 SC 2612, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "The grounds on which power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings basically are (1) where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint, even if they are taken at their fact value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused (2) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and made out a case against the accused, (3) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure or the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceedings. But this power has to be exercised in a rare case and with great circumspection." 7. From the perusal of material on the record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.All the submission made by learned counsel for applicants relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 8. The prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as further proceeding in the aforesaid case is hereby refused. 9. With the aforesaid observation, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. ---------- (2020)06ILR A205 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.12.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-IX, J. Application U/S 482 No. 43088 of 2019 Lalloo Khan & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Applicants: