# Raghav v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 11 ILRA 55
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-09-21
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 12606 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raghav-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45426
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code
(2 of 1974) - Sections 202, 204, 200 -
Issuance of process - summoning -
Prima-facie case is only to be seen by
Magistrate on the basis of evidence
collected by him under his enquiry u/s
200
&
202
Cr.P.C.
-
Accused
evidence/defence - not to be seen at
that stage - evidence placed by accused
is
to
be
seen
after
recording
of
statement u/s 244 Cr.P.C. or in any
discharge application moved by accused
(Para 5)

Dismissed (E-5)

Listed of Cases cited:-

## Text

11 All. Raghav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
55

28. The application lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if
any, stands vacated.
----------
(2020)11ILR A55
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 12606 of 2020

Raghav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Anand Kumar Singh

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

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code
(2 of 1974) - Sections 202, 204, 200 -
Issuance of process - summoning -
Prima-facie case is only to be seen by
Magistrate on the basis of evidence
collected by him under his enquiry u/s
200
&
202
Cr.P.C.
-
Accused
evidence/defence - not to be seen at
that stage - evidence placed by accused
is
to
be
seen
after
recording
of
statement u/s 244 Cr.P.C. or in any
discharge application moved by accused
(Para 5)

Dismissed (E-5)

Listed 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 Represented by
Inspector of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296

5. Dhanlakshmi Vs R.Prasana Kumar (1990)
Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494

6. State of Bihar Vs Murad Ali Khan (1989) Cr
LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant
and
learned
A.G.A.
representing
the
State.
Perused
the
records.

2. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant
Raghav against State of U.P. and Smt.
Geeta with prayer to quash summoning
order dated 05.11.2019 passed by C.J.M.,
Mainpuri, in Complaint Case No. 231 of
2017, Smt. Geeta Devi Vs. Raghav and
others, under Sections 304B I.P.C., P.S.
Bichawa, district Mainpuri, as well as the
order dated 24.2.2020 passed by Sessions
Judge, Mainpuri, in Criminal Revision
No. 03 of 2020, Raghav Vs. State of U.P.
and another.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
argued that an application u/s 156(3)
Cr.P.C. was filed by complainant and it was
treated to be complaint case. Against this
order dated 30.1.2017 the complaint filed
Application u/s 482 No. 5870 of 2017, Smt.
Geeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others,
wherein proceeding was dismissed vide
order dated 21.2.2017. Against this order
dated 21.2.2017 the complainant filed and
S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India as Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.
7381 of 2017, which was dismissed vide
order dated 16.5.2018 with direction for
dismissal of all pending applications. This
56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order of Apex Court was concealed and
impugned summoning order was got
obtained. This was a proceeding initiated
after three and half months of occurrence
and it was not an unnatural death. Rather it
was a death during treatment, wherein the
deceased had delivered a child and then
after some complications were developed
for which she was referred to higher centre
and while being taken to higher centre at
Agra, she succumbed on the way, for which
there is a certificate of Medical Officer
concerned,
wherein
above
medical
complication
has
been
mentioned.
Complainant and her family members were
present during last rituals that is why no
report was ever made and after three
months, this false complaint was filed by
complainant. It is an abuse of process of
law. Hence this application with above
prayer.

4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently
opposed the above argument.

5. From the very perusal of order of
Apex Court passed in Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No. 7381 of 2017 arising out
of
final
judgment
and
order
dated
21.2.2017
passed
in
Criminal
Misc.
Application No. 5870 of 2017 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Smt. Geeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. and
others, dated 16.5.2018 it is apparent that
S.L.P.
was
dismissed
and
pending
applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of has been passed i.e. nowhere
this order is there that all proceedings
pending with regard to complaint stand
disposed of. Hence apparently inference
argued by learned counsel for applicant is
erroneous. Nowhere the Apex Court has
directed for disposal of proceeding, as has
been argued by learned counsel for
applicant. In the proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
No. 5870 of 2017, Smt. Geeta Vs. State of
U.P. and 6 others, this court vide order
dated 21.2.2017 has upheld the order of
Magistrate dated 30.1.2017 with regard to
registration of complaint case. Meaning
thereby registration of complaint case, of
which cognizance was taken by Magistrate
for initiating enquiry u/s 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. in alleged occurrence of dowry
death, was upheld by this court. Now in the
enquiry made by Magistrate, the statement
of complainant is there that the deceased
Sapna was married two years before with
Raghav and since marriage she was
subjected to cruelty with regard to demand
of dowry of Rs. Two lacs cash and a car by
her in-laws. This was complained by Sapna
to her mother i.e. the complainant Smt.
Geeta. The names of accused were
disclosed
by
Sapna
as
Raghav,
Brahmanand, Sharda, Sandeep, Anuradha
and Dilip. There was a contention that
Sapna was throttled and committed murder
on 14.8.2016 by those in-laws. A telephonic
call was received in the morning at 7 to 8
A.M. wherein they were apprised the
occurrence and when the complainant
rushed to the nuptial home of Sapna, last
rituals of Sapna was done. When asked
about,
a
threat
was
extended. This
contention
of
complainant
has
been
corroborated in the statements of witnesses
recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate in
its enquiry examined Ashok Kumar and
Trilok u/s 202 Cr.P.C., wherein also
corroboration is there. On the basis of those
evidence impugned summoning order dated
5.11.2019 was made wherein accused
Raghav was summoned for the offence
punishable u/s 304B I.P.C. Marriage within
two years with Raghav is an admitted fact.
Death at nuptial house while deceased was
with her in-law is also an undisputed fact.
Death under unnatural circumstances is
said by complainant and her witnesses.
11 All. Raghav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
57
Though certificate of Medical Officer has
been filed by accused persons. Prima-facie
case
for
summoning
was
seen
by
Magistrate on the basis of evidence
collected by him under his enquiry u/s 200
and 202 Cr.P.C. Now the evidence being
placed by accused is to be seen at
appropriate
stage
after
recording
of
statement u/s 244 Cr.P.C. or in any
discharge application moved by accused.
Till this juncture there is no abuse of
process of law.

6. This court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not
expected to meticulously analyse the facts
and evidence as it is within the domain of
trial court.

7. Saving of inherent power of High
Court, as given under Section 482 Cr.P.C,
provides that nothing in this Code shall be
deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under this Code, or to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Meaning thereby this inherent power is
with High Court (I) to make such order as
may be necessary to give effect to any other
order under this Code (II) to prevent abuse
of the process of any Court (III) or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But
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 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 another
subsequent 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
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".

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
58 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 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.
----------

(2020)11ILR A58
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 12608 of 2020

Sri Rudra Prakash Tiwari & Anr.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Shivakant

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

A.
Criminal
Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 420, 504, 506 -
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881-Sections
138-quashing
of
summoning
order
refused- complainant and witnesses were
examined-they were in corroboration with
complaint and on the basis of evidence
collected summoning order was passed by
the
magistrate-while
exercising
jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC the High Court
would not 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 court.(Para 5 to 8)

B. To prevent abuse of process of law,
High Court in exercise of its inherent
powers 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.(Para 8)

In the instant case, complainant and the
applicants agreed on the basis of shared
commission for getting land and installation of
solar plant on the land. After execution of sale
deed of 60 Acres of land, a fraud was
committed with the complainant with regard the
payment of commission. On demand, promised
was made to be paid through cheque but the
cheque was dishonoured for which separate
proceeding u/s 138 N.I. Act was pending but for
offences of fraud, abuse and extension of
threat, complaint was filed.(Para 5)

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. L J
3844

2. Hamida Vs Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474

3. Monica Kumar Vs St. of U.P.,( 2008) 8 SCC
781