# Rajeev Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 687
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-11
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 45488 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajeev-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45268
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482 - Statement of Complainant u/s 200
Cr.P.C
fully
intact-Reiterated
by
witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C.- Impugned
summoning
order
by
application
of
judicial mind passed against accused on
the
basis
of
evidence
collected
by
Magistrate
in
its
inquiry-
Previous
occurrence
may
be
a
motive
for
subsequent occurrence or it may be a
motive for false accusation, but either
688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
way it is a question of fact to be seen by
Magistrate-Quashing
refused-
For
a
period of four weeks or till the disposal of
the
application
for
grant
of
bail
whichever is earlier, no coercive action
shall be taken against the applicants.
(Para 6,7 & 11)

Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C
disposed of. (E-3)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. Rajeev Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
687
jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at
any stage.

16. In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State
of Uttaranchal, reported in, (2008) 1 SCC
157, the Court held that :

"20. So far as the scope and ambit of
the powers of the High Court under Section 482
of the Code is concerned, the same has been
enunciated and reiterated by this Court in a
catena
of
decisions
and
illustrative
circumstances under which the High Court can
exercise
jurisdiction
in
quashing
the
proceedings have been enumerated. However,
for the sake of brevity, we do not propose to
make reference to the decisions on the point. It
would suffice to state that though the powers
possessed by the High Court under the said
provision are very wide but these should be
exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone the Courts exist.
The inherent powers possessed by the High
Court are to be exercised very carefully and
with great caution so that a legitimate
prosecution is not stifled. Nevertheless, where
the High Court is convinced that the allegations
made in the First Information Report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety, do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused or where the
allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused, the
powers of the High Court under the said
provision should be exercised."

17. Present case does not appear to
be covered in any category given in State
of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal
and others (supra).

18. From perusal of allegations made
in the FIR, statement of witnesses during
investigation, charge sheet submitted by
Investigating Officer, it cannot be said that
no offence is made out against the
accused-applicant and charge sheet has
been wrongly submitted.

19. All the submissions made at bar
raised to the disputed question of fact,
cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court
in exercise of power conferred under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.

20. Application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 687

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 45488 of 2019

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Dipak Kumar Tiwari

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

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482 - Statement of Complainant u/s 200
Cr.P.C
fully
intact-Reiterated
by
witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C.- Impugned
summoning
order
by
application
of
judicial mind passed against accused on
the
basis
of
evidence
collected
by
Magistrate
in
its
inquiry-
Previous
occurrence
may
be
a
motive
for
subsequent occurrence or it may be a
motive for false accusation, but either
688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
way it is a question of fact to be seen by
Magistrate-Quashing
refused-
For
a
period of four weeks or till the disposal of
the
application
for
grant
of
bail
whichever is earlier, no coercive action
shall be taken against the applicants.
(Para 6,7 & 11)

Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C
disposed of. (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 Vs. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474

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

4. Popular Muthiah Vs. State, 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 and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004
(57) ALR 290

8. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)

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

1. The applicants, by means of this
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court with prayer to quash the entire
proceedings
as
well
as
impugned
summoning
order
dated
25.09.2019,
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
Jalaun in Complaint Case No. 811 of
2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.,
Police
Station
Madhaugarh,
District
Jalaun, pending in the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun, District Jalaun.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants
and
learned
A.G.A.
representing the State.

3. Learned counsel for applicants
argued that it is a counter blast case, filed
under misuse of process of law because for
an occurrence of 11.04.2016, which
occurred at about 15 P.M., report was got
lodged
on
03.05.2016
for
offences
punishable under Sections 294, 452, 354,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. upon report of Rajiv
Kumar against Ramsiya and Jitendra.
Hence, this application with above prayer.

4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently
opposed the application.

5. From the very perusal of first
information report, as above, it is apparent
that some occurrence took place on
11.04.2016 at 15 P.M., for which report
was got lodged. The occurrence of present
complaint case is of same date 11.04.2016,
but is of 9 P.M. i.e. previous occurrence
may be a motive for this subsequent
occurrence or it may be a motive for false
accusation, but either way it is a question
of fact to be be seen by Magistrate.

6. From the perusal of complaint, it
is apparent that it was said that on
11.04.2016 at about 9 P.M., while
complainant was on his way for having
meal. He was abused by Rajiv Kumar and
Sanjiv Kumar. It was protested, then he
went to his home, where Rajiv Kumar,
Sanjiv Kumar, Rohit and Gaurav Kumar,
armed with axe and lathi-danda came
there. They did criminal tress-pass and
assaulted. On hue and cry, Manoj, Munshi
and many others rushed there. Accused
1 All. Rajeev Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
689
persons ran from spot, while extending
threat of dire consequences and this assault
was owing to previous enmity in between.
Complainant was examined under Section
200 Cr.P.C., where his statement is fully
intact. The same is the reiteration by PW-1
Manoj and PW-2 Anek Singh in their
statement recorded under Section 202
Cr.P.C. Impugned summoning order by
application of judicial mind was passed for
offence punishable under Sections 323,
504, 506 I.P.C. against accused. It was on
the basis of evidence collected by
Magistrate in its inquiry.

7. Moreso, 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
interference only when the complaint did
not disclose any offence or was frivolous
690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. The prayer for quashing
summoning order as well as proceeding of
the aforesaid criminal case is refused.

11. However, in the interest of
justice, it is provided that if the applicants
appear and surrender before the court
below within four weeks from today and
apply for bail, then the bail application of
the applicants 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 judgment
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra
Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

12. For a period of four weeks from
today or till the disposal of the application
for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no
coercive action shall be taken against the
applicants.

13. However, in case, the applicants
do not appear before the Court below
within the aforesaid period, coercive
action shall be taken against them.

14. With the aforesaid directions, this
application is finally disposed of.
----------
(2020)1ILR 690

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Crl. Misc. Ist Bail Application No. 50174 of 2019

Udit Kumar Mittal ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi, Sri Shishir
Tandon

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri Ajay Kumar Pandy, Sri Imran
Ullah

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail -
Applicant case that he is bona fide
purchaser of the property in question and
has been cheated by co-accused Vikas
Garg - Possession of property in question
has not been handed over by the coaccused Vikas Garg to the applicant
despite
executing
sale
deed
dated
2.1.2012
in
favour
of
applicant
-
Proceeding under SARFAESI Act in the
matter is still subjudice before D.R.T.,
Lucknow and no suit for cancellation of
sale
deeds
dated
24.06.2011
and
02.01.2012 has been filed by any person -
case of applicant distinguishable from the
case of co-accused Vikas Garg, who is
main
person
in
this
case
and
is
absconding - Fit case for Bail (Para 3)

Crl. Misc. Bail application allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Learned counsel for the informant
has filed short counter affidavit dated
24.11.2019. In reply, short rejoinder