# Raghvendra & Ors v. State of U.P.& Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 200
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-18
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr. P.C.) No. 36839 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raghvendra-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44932
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
482
-
Summoning Order - Impugned summoning
order passed by the Presiding Judge on the
basis of evidences collected on an enquiry
being made by him, factual analysis of
which cannot be made by this Court at
thisstage by exercise of power, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in view of law
propounded by the Apex Court. (Para 4)

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

List of cases cited: -

## Text

200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
;k Nqik;k tkrk gS] ftldk lh/ks rjg ls
euksfoKkuh vlj ihfM+r ;k fifM+rk ij vkrk gSA
,slk gksuk nqHkkX;iw.kZ gSA

17- orZeku izdj.k esa] mijksDr fu/kkZfjr
oS/kkfud eki n.Mks dks ykxw djus ij fuEu
fu"d"kZ vkrk gSA

(i) ySafxx vijk/kks ls ckydks dk
laj{k.k vf/kfu;e 2012 dh /kkjk 7 ,oa 8 eas
of.kZr vijk/k futh izd`fr ds ugh gS] cfYd ;s
vijk/k lekt ds fo:) gSA ,sls vijk/k bl
ukrs laxhu vijk/k dh Js.kh esa vkrs gSA

(ii) orZeku ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g ugh
dgk tk ldrk fd ijh{k.k 1⁄4Vak;y1⁄2 us vUr esa
vijk/kh dh nks"k flf) dh laHkkouk /kwfey gSA

(iii) ySfxax vijk/k ls ckydks dk
lja{k.k vf/kfu;e 2012 ,d fo'ks"k vf/kfu;e gS
ftldk mn~ns'; Hkh fof'k"B gS fd ^^lafo/kku ds
vuqPNsn 15 dk [kaM 1⁄431⁄2] vU; ckrksa ds lkFk
jkT; dks ckydksa ds fy, fo'ks"k mica/k djus ds
fy, l'kDr djrk gS(

la;qDr jk"Va dh egklHkk }kjk
vaxhd`r ckydksa ds vf/kdkjksa ls lacaf/kr
vfHkle; dks] tks ckyd ds loksZÙke fgrksa dks
lqjf{kr djus ds fy, lHkh jkT; i{kdkjksa }kjk
ikyu fd, tkus okys ekudksa dks fofgr djrk
gS] Hkkjr ljdkj us rkjh[k 11 fnlEcj] 1992
dks vaxhd`r fd;k gS(

ckyd ds mfpr fodkl ds fy, ;g
vko';d gS fd izR;sd O;fDr }kjk mldh
futrk vkSj xksiuh;rk ds vf/kdkj dk lHkh
izdkj ls rFkk ckydksa dks varoZfyr djus okyh
U;kf;d izfØ;k ds lHkh izØeksa ds ek/;e ls
lajf{kr vkSj lEekfur fd;k tk,(

;g vfuok;Z gS fd fof/k ,slh jhfr ls
izofrZr gks fd ckyd ds vPNs 'kkjhfjd]
HkkokRed] ckSf)d vkSj lkekftd fodkl dks
lqfuf'pr djus ds fy, izR;sd izØe ij ckyd
ds loksZÙke fgr vkSj dY;k.k ij loksZifj egRo
ds :i esa /;ku fn;k tk,(

ckyd ds vf/kdkjksa ls lacaf/kr
vfHkle; ds jkT; i{kdkjksa ls fuEufyf[kr dk
fuokj.k djus ds fy, lHkh leqfpr jk"Vah;]
f}i{kh; ;k cgqi{kh; mik; djuk visf{kr gS&

1⁄4d1⁄2
fdlh
fof/kfo:)
ySafxd
fØ;kdyki eas yxkus ds fy, fdlh ckyd dks
mRizsfjr ;k izihM+u djuk(

1⁄4[k1⁄2 os';ko`fÙk ;k vU; fof/kfo:)
ySafxd O;olk;ksa esa ckydksa dk 'kks"k.kkRed
mi;ksx djuk(

1⁄4x1⁄2
v'yhy
xfrfof/k;ksa
vkSj
lkefxz;ksa esa ckydksa dk 'kks"k.kkRed mi;ksx
djuk(

ckydksa ds ySafxd 'kksf"k.k vkSj ySafxd
nq:i;ksx t?kU; vijk/k gSa] vkSj mu ij izHkkoh
:i ls dkjZokbZ djus dh vko';drk gSA**

ikjLifjd le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij nkafMd
dk;Zokgh dks jn~n djuk] bl izfØ;k dks
vkdfLed e`R;q nsuk tSlk gksxk o mijksDr
mn~ns'; dh Hkkouk ls foijhr Hkh gksxkA ,slk
djuk fdlh Hkh izdkj ls U;k; ds mn~ns';ks dh
izfIr dks lqfuf'pr djuk ugh gks ldrk gSA

(iv) orZeku eqdnes ds lanHkZ eas
vfHkHkkod }kjk ihfM+rk dh vksj ls le>kSrk
djuk Hkh ,d udkjkRed igyw gSA

18- orZeku okn ds rF;ks] dkuwuh igyw]
fof/kd fu.kZ;ks] layXu izi=ks o fo}ku
vf/koDrkvks ds dFkuks o mijksDr ppkZ dk xgu
v/;;u ds ckn eS bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWpk gwW fd
orZeku rF;ks o ijhfLFkfr;ks esa ikjLifjd
le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr ds fo:)
lafLFkr nkf.Md dk;Zokgh dks jn~n djuk
U;k;ksfpr ugh gSA vr% orZeku okn esa nkf.Md
izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds varxZr izkIr
varfufgr 'kfDr dk iz;ksx djuk U;k; ds fgr
esa o U;k;laxr ugh gSA

19- vr% orZeku vkosnu fujLr djus
;ksX; gS] rnuqlkj fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA
----------
(2019)12 ILR A200

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2019

BEFORE
4 All. Raghvendra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
201
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Crl. Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr. P.C.) No.
36839 of 2019

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi

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

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
482
-
Summoning Order - Impugned summoning
order passed by the Presiding Judge on the
basis of evidences collected on an enquiry
being made by him, factual analysis of
which cannot be made by this Court at
thisstage by exercise of power, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in view of law
propounded by the Apex Court. (Para 4)

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 v. 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 494

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

7. Amrawati & anr. Vs. St. of U.P., 2004 (57)
ALR 290

8. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. St. of U.P.
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants over this Application, moved
under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, by the applicants,
against State of U.P. and another, with a
prayer for quashing of summoning order,
dated 7th September, 2019, passed by the
Additional
District
&
Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected
Area), Lalitpur, in Complaint Case No. 48
of 2019, under Sections 395 and 397 of
Indian
Penal
Code,
Police
Station-
Kotwali Lalitpur, District-Lalitpur, and to
stay further proceedings, in above case.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant
s argued that the above complaint case
was a counter-blast, which was got
registered in response to a complaint case,
got filed by the applicants, on 28.3.2019,
for an occurrence of 8.3.2019, wherein,
present complainant side has been named,
and as such, above case with these
accusations was got lodged, implicating
entire family members of the applicants
and they have been summoned by the
Presiding
Judge,
whereas,
there
is
inconsistency
in
the
statements
of
complainant and his witnesses, recorded,
under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C.

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

4. From very perusal of the
impugned summoning order, it is apparent
that the occurrence was said to be of
8.3.2019,
wherein,
accused
persons,
applicants (herein), alongwith others,
were said to have come at the home of
complainant, by Tractor and Trolley,
202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wherein complainant's mother, Rasrani,
was present. They tookaway 50 quintal of
grains, worth about Rs.2,00000/-, and on
being protested, they used force with
abuse. Complainant rushed to his home
and he too was assaulted. This was
witnessed by Lokendra, Sonu Tanay, and
nand Kishore, Information of this incident
was sent to the Police Station, Kotwali,
Lalitpur, but to no avail, then, it was
submitted before the Superintendent of
Police, Lalitpur, and after that this
complaint was lodged for offences,
punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of
IPC, upon which, learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(D.A.A.), Laliput, took cognizance and
got complaint examined, under Sections
200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. Complainant,
Hariom, in his statement, has reiterated
contention of complaint. Further enquiry
was made by the Presiding Judge,
wherein, witness Lokendra and Sonu etc.
were examined, who two supported
version of the complainant and on the
basis of statements of the complainant and
other witnesses, impugned summoning
order, dated 7th September, 2019 was
passed
in
which
applicants
were
summoned
for
offences,
punishable,
under Section 395 and 397 of Cr.P.C. The
impugned summoning order was came to
be passed by the Presiding Judge on the
basis of evidences collected on an enquiry
being made by him, factual analysis of
which cannot be made by this Court at
this stage by exercise of power, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in view of law
propounded by the 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".

5. Regarding prevention of abuse of
process
of
Court, Apex
Court
in
Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar,
4 All. Devendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
203
(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 complain
are likely to be established by evidence or
not".

6. Meaning thereby, exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as
above.

7. In view of what has been
discussed above, there is no ground of any
indulgence to be granted by this Court.
Accordingly,
this Application,
under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves dismissal,
being devoid of merits, and it stands
dismissed accordingly.

8. However, it is directed that if the
applicants appear and surrender before the
court below within 30 days from today
and apply for bail, 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.

9. For a period of 30 days from
today, no coercive action shall be taken
against the applicants. However, in case,
the applicants do not appear before the
Court below, within the aforesaid period,
coercive action shall be taken against
them.
----------

(2019)12 ILR A203

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Crl. Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr. P.C.) No.
37354 of 2019

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Dharmendra Kumar Singh

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

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
482
-
Complaint Case - Sections 200 and 202.
Perusal of statements recorded under
show that they support the summoning
order. High Court in exercise of its
inherent
jurisdiction,
vested
under
Section 482 of Cr. P.C., would not
interfere, unless there is abuse of
process of law.

Criminal
Application
u/s
482
Cr.Pc
rejected. (E-2)

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