# Rahul Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 524
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-06
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 5029 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rahul-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45364
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed for quashing the charge sheet
under section 498-A, 323, 34, 120-B IPC
read with 3/4 D.P. Act.

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - Condition for
exercise of power to prevent an abuse of
process of court or to secure the ends of justice
- The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory
is to this fact that there was poisonous
substances in the body of the lady, hence, it
cannot be said that there is no evidence or
abuse of process of law in filing of chargesheet.

There is no any merit in this application -
dismissed. (E-2)
10 All. Rahul Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
525
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
charges.
Accused
thereafter
filed
an
application under Section 482 Cr.PC for
quashing order dated 14.12.2005 passed by
Magistrate rejecting discharge application.
In the meantime, charge-sheet was also
filed against other accused. High Court
rejected application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. on the ground that Magistrate had
found
sufficient
material
showing
complicity of accused and this order was
challenged before Supreme Court. It
formulated a question as under:-

"Whether the material on record
prima facie constitutes any offence against
accused ?"

32. Supreme Court in Mohammed
Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar (supra),
considered the submission of learned counsel
of accused-appellants that if allegation made
in the complaint and FIR, even if accepted in
its entirety did not disclose the ingredients of
offence of forgery or cheating or insult or
wrongful restraint or causing hurt or there
was no other material and, therefore, their
application ought to have been accepted.
Court examined Sections 464, 420, 504 IPC
separately. From a perusal of aforesaid
provisions and also the allegations contained
in FIR and other material, Court found that
no offences under Sections 420, 467, 471,
504, 341, 323 IPC were made out. It is thus
evident that aforesaid judgement is based on
different facts and has no application to the
facts of this case.

33. Here during investigation, I.O. has
found that name of Umesh Chand Saxena
was mentioned in documents prepared for
distribution of scholarship falsely and
fraudulently.
In
fact,
documents
were
prepared subsequently by accused-applicant
and that is why, I.O. found that Gram
Pradhan and Secretary have no role in the
offence
and
they
were
left.
Various
documents which have been placed before
this Court by learned counsel for applicant
are still unproved documents and yet to led as
evidence in Trial Court. Hence, this Court
cannot examine the same and it cannot be
said that no offence against applicant is made
out.

34. Application lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2020)10ILR A524
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5029 of 2020

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri J.B. Singh

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

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed for quashing the charge sheet
under section 498-A, 323, 34, 120-B IPC
read with 3/4 D.P. Act.

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - Condition for
exercise of power to prevent an abuse of
process of court or to secure the ends of justice
- The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory
is to this fact that there was poisonous
substances in the body of the lady, hence, it
cannot be said that there is no evidence or
abuse of process of law in filing of chargesheet.

There is no any merit in this application -
dismissed. (E-2)
10 All. Rahul Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
525
List of Cases cited:-

1. St. of And. 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. This Application, under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
has been filed by the Applicants, Rahul
Singh and Ravi @ Ravish, with a prayer for
setting aside Chargesheet No.435/2019,
dated
17.9.2019,
as
well
as
entire
proceeding of Case Crime No.167/2017,
under Sectioins-498A/323/34/120B of IPC,
read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, Police Station, Surajpur, District
Gautam Buddh Nagar, and impugned
cognizance and summoning order, dated
18.9.2019, passed by II Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar.

2. Learned counsel for applicants
firstly argued that the matter may be
referred to the Mediation and Conciliation
Centre of this Court as there is likelihood
of compromise in between the parties and,
secondly, accused persons had appeared
before the Trial court and they are on bail
in above case. It is under abuse of process
of law. Hence, for avoiding abuse of
process of law and to secure ends of justice,
this Application, under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., has been filed, with above prayer.

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

4. Relief prayed for quashing of entire
proceeding in Criminal Case No.4242 of
2019 (State vs. Hem Singh and others),
arising out of Case Crime No. 167 of 2017,
under Sections 498A, 323, 328/34 and
120B of IPC, read with Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act of Police StationSurjapur, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar,
but the Application has been filed only by
two
accused
persons,
i.e.,
present
applicants, Rahul Singh and Ravi @
Ravish.
This
case
crime
number,
proceeding of which is being prayed to be
quashed, is with other co-accused persons
too. Hence, same is not possible to be
quashed, upon an application, moved by
two accused persons only.

5. Accusation, as is apparent from the
statement of victim, Smt. Madhu, is of
heinous offence, punishable, under various
Sections of IPC, as above. There seems to
be no element or likelihood of compromise,
if any, in view of law laid down by the
Apex Court, with regard to referral of the
proceeding by the Courts for mediation to
the Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Hence, this prayer is also not with any
susbtance.

6. First information report was
reiteration of statements of victim and other
witnesses, recorded, under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. The report of the Forensic Science
Laboratory is to this fact that there was
poisonous substances in the body of the
lady, hence, it cannot be said that there is
526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no evidence or abuse of process of law in
filing of chargesheet in the case.

7. This Court, in exercise of inherent
power, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not
expected to embark upon factual matrix of
the case.

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
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".

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

11. In view of what has been
discussed above, this Application, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., merits dismissal
and it stands dismissed accordingly.
However, he facts being raised before this
Court may be raised before the Trial court
at appropriate stage, by moving an
10 All. M/S Daurala Sugar Works Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
527
appropriate Application, at the time of
framing of charge or subsequently, as the
law permits, which, if moved, shall be
decided by the Trial court, in accordance
with the provisions of law.
----------
(2020)10ILR A527
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.10.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 1954 of 2020

M/S Daurala Sugar Works ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sudeep Kumar, Avdhesh Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
-----

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 -Section 245 - This
petition
filed
against
the
discharge
application U/S 245 of Cr.P.C. by the Uttar
Pradesh Pollution
Control Board under
Section 44 and consequential confirming
the order by the revisional court (Additional
Sessions Judge).

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 -Section 203/204 - At
this stage, the court considers the material
before it to decide whether there is
sufficient ground to proceed against the
accused. (Para 33)

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 -Section 245 of Cr.P.C.
(Discharge of accused) - After enquiry
U/S 244 of Cr.P.C., the court of consider
whether
the
evidence
before
it
if
unrebutted would warrant a conviction.
(Para 33)
Quality of consideration of evidence U/S
203/204
Cr.P.C.
and
245/246
Cr.P.C.
different. (Para 34)

In present case, prima facie evidence
available against accused / applicant to
warrant conviction. No ground made out for
interference.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 -Section 397 - Criminal
Revision - Interference by revisional court -
only
if
order
is
perverse.
No
illegality/perversity
found
in
the
order
passed by the court below.

Criminal Revision dismissed.( E-2)

List of Cases cited :-

1. Amrey Pharmaceuticals & ors. Vs St. of
Raj, (2001) 4 7 SCC 382.

2. St. of Har. Vs Unique Formed (P) Ltd.,
(1999) 8 SCC 190.

3. Dr. Z. Kotasek Vs The St. of Bihar, 1984
Cri LJ 683.

4. U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs Dr.
Bhupendra Kumar Modi & anr., (2009) 1
SCC (Cri) 679.

5. C.B.I. Vs A. Ravishankar Prasad, (2009) 6
SCC 351.

6. Inder Mohan Goswami Vs St. of Uttar.,
2007 (5) CTC 614 (SC) (2007) 12 SCC 1
(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259.

7. Dinesh Dutt Vs St. of Rajas., (2001) 8
SCC 570.

8. M.C. Mehta Vs Kamal Nath & ors, (1997)
1 SCC 388.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)

1. The instant petition under Section
482/483 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed
against order dated 11.11.2019 passed by