# Rajesh & Ors v. The State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 610
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-25
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 21881 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-ors-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-46659
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 482 - Indian Penal
Code,1860-Sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 323,
354-Kha, 506-quashing of charge-sheet and
summoning order-opposite party lodged the FIR
against the applicants that the applicants tried to
grab her land-they had torn her clothes and also
started beating her sons-learned court below
committed no illegality-no ground to quash the
chargesheet and summoning order as the
applicants failed to show any jurisdictional errorthe factual issues cannot be gone into and no
roving inquiry can be made at this stage.(Para 1
to 26)

B. The powers so exercised cannot be put in
straitjacket formula as the same has to be
exercised as per facts and circumstances of
individual cases in hand. the purpose for insertion
of section 482 Cr.P.C. is to secure justice and
eliminate the chances of any accused being
allowed to walk away.the inherent power is alos
engrafted just in order to wriggle out an innocent
person, who has been falsely implicated in a
criminal cases.(Para 8 to 14)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the case warrants direction that order for lodging
FIR.

23. Learned counsel for the applicant has
relied upon a judgment in Criminal Revision
No.4787 of 2005, Rajendra Singh Gurjer &
others Vs. State of U.P. & another decided on
7.12.2017 so as to contend that in the disputes of
the same nature, criminal proceedings can be
instituted.

24. This Court after going through the
judgement in the case of Rajendra Singh Gurje
(Supra) does not find that the said case is
applicable in the present facts of the case. As the
facts of the said case are entirely different and
no proposition of law so convinced by the
applicant has been laid down.

25. Lastly, learned counsel for the
applicant has drawn the attention of the court
towards order dated 3.8.2021 passed in
Application Under Section 482 No.13414 of
2021, Srikant Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh but the
said judgment emanates from the issuance of
notice, under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C.

26. Looking to the facts of the
circumstances of the case as pleaded and
canvassed by the learned counsel for the
applicant, this Court does not find any legal
infirmity in the orders passed dated 7.6.2019 and
20.8.2019 under challenge and hence the present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is liable to
be dismissed.

27. No other point has been raised by
learned counsel for the applicant.

28. Accordingly, the application is
dismissed.
----------
(2021)12ILR A610
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2021
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 21881 of 2021

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Ajay Kumar, Sri Chandrama Singh

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

A.
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 482 - Indian Penal
Code,1860-Sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 323,
354-Kha, 506-quashing of charge-sheet and
summoning order-opposite party lodged the FIR
against the applicants that the applicants tried to
grab her land-they had torn her clothes and also
started beating her sons-learned court below
committed no illegality-no ground to quash the
chargesheet and summoning order as the
applicants failed to show any jurisdictional errorthe factual issues cannot be gone into and no
roving inquiry can be made at this stage.(Para 1
to 26)

B. The powers so exercised cannot be put in
straitjacket formula as the same has to be
exercised as per facts and circumstances of
individual cases in hand. the purpose for insertion
of section 482 Cr.P.C. is to secure justice and
eliminate the chances of any accused being
allowed to walk away.the inherent power is alos
engrafted just in order to wriggle out an innocent
person, who has been falsely implicated in a
criminal cases.(Para 8 to 14)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Punj. (1960) AIR SC 866

2. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335

3. St. of A. P. Vs Golconda Linga Swami (2004) 6 SCC
522
11 All. Rajesh & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
611
4. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Sharaful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122

5. Sanapareday Maheedhar Seshagiri Vs St. of A.P.
(2007) 13 SCC 165

6. St. of Telangana Vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani (2017)
2 SCC 779

7. M/S Neeharika Infras. Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of Mah. &
ors. (2021) AIR SC 192

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel
for the applicants and Sri K.K. Rajbhar, learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. The applicant herein has filed the
present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
of the entire criminal proceeding against the
applicants arising out of Criminal Case No. 8326
of 2020, State Vs. Ravikant & Others, relating to
case crime no. 1363 of 2018, u/s 147,148, 452,
427, 323, 354-Kha & 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali
Nagar, District Etah, pending in the court of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Etah as well as
quash the charge sheet no. 345 of 2019 dated
10.06.2019 submitted by the Investigating
Officer.

3.

Briefly
stated
facts
shorn
off
unnecessary details are that the opposite party
no. 2 lodged the FIR no. 1363 of 2018 on
22.11.2018 before the Police Station Kotwali
Nagar, District Etah u/s 147,148, 452, 427, 323,
307, 354-Kha & 506 IPC alleging therein that
the opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded
wife of the Amar Singh, R/o Uddaitpur, P.S.
Kotwali Nagar, District Etah and she has her
own house at Uddaitpur and the opposite party
no. 2 was tying her cattle in that house but one
Rajesh who happens to be the owner of the small
plot just behind the plot of opposite party no. 2,
attempted to illegally occupy the property of the
opposite party no. 2. According to the opposite
party no. 2, she had made a complaint before the
police authority regarding the illegal and
forcible attempts for taking possession of the
land of the opposite party no. 2 in question.
However, on 20.11.2018 at about 3 O' clock
when the opposite party no. 2 was preparing the
feed of the cattle then Rajesh along with
Ravikant S/o Charan Singh, Charan Singh S/o
unknown, Shushila W/o Rajesh, Ramnath S/o
unknown, Pappu S/o Ramnath, Ramsewak S/o
Ajvir Singh gathered on a particular point and
after discussion, came before the opposite party
no. 2 along with the wooden stick and pistol. It
is also alleged in the FIR that Pappu was in
possession of a pistol and the other accomplishes
were having wooden sticks and they wanted to
encroach upon the property of the opposite party
no. 2 and when the opposite party no. 2 resisted
the aforesaid, they started beating her with
wooden stick and also humiliated her and further
it has been alleged that the they had torn her
clothes on account whereof she became semi
naked and she started screaming then, the
neighbours came in rescue of the opposite party
no. 2. At the relevant point of time, Pappu
started firing in the air and the aforesaid accused
started beating with intention to kill the sons of
opposite party no. 2 being Shivam and Veerpal
and they also fired upon them and when the
aforesaid accused were being resisted by the
persons who are standing over there, they ran
away.

4. It appears that the Investigating Officer
thereafter submitted the charge sheet dated
10.06.2019 against the applicants u/s 147,148,
452, 427, 323, 354-Kha & 506 IPC and the
cognizance thereof was taken on 11.09.2020.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants
are now before this Court and seeking to
challenge the charge sheet dated 10.06.2019.

6. In order to appreciate the controversy
between the parties it is apt to refer to section
482 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"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."

7. A plain reading u/s 482 Cr.P.C. itself
shows that the same starts with notwithstanding
clause and the same confers inherent power
upon the High Court to make such order as may
be necessary to give effect to any order under
the code or to prevent abuse of process of Court
or otherwise to ensure the ends of justice.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab reported in
AIR 1960 SC 866 has the occasion to consider
the parameter provisions contained under section
561-A of the Cr.P.C. 1898 viz a viz the
provisions contained under section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. 1973 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has carved out the same exceptions which
relating to exercise of inherent power as
conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. referable to
quash all the criminal proceeding at the behest
of the accused.

"(i) Where it manifestly appears that
there is a legal bar against the institution or
continuance of the criminal proceeding in
respect of the offence alleged. Absence of the
requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish
cases under this category.

(ii) Where the allegations in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety, do not constitute the offence
alleged;
in
such
cases
no
question
of
appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter
merely of looking at the complaint or the first
information report to decide whether the offence
alleged is disclosed or not.

(iii) Where the allegations made
against the accused person do constitute an
offence alleged but there is either no legal
evidence adduced in support of the case or the
evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to
prove the charge. In dealing with this class of
cases it is important to bear in mind the
distinction between a case where there is no
legal evidence or where there is evidence which
is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the
accusation made and cases where there is legal
evidence which on its appreciation may or may
not support the accusation in question. In
exercising its jurisdiction under Section 561- A
the High Court would not embark upon an
enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is
reliable or not. That is the function of the trial
Magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open
to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent
jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable
appreciation of the evidence the accusation
made against the accused would not be
sustained."

9. The following judgment in the case of
R.P. Kapoor (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 held as under:-

"102.(1) Where 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.

(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code.
11 All. Rajesh & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
613

(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint and
the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR
do not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer
without
an
order
of
a
Magistrate
as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the
FIR or 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.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or
the Act concerned (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."

10. The law laid down in the case of R.P.
Kapoor (Supra) and Bhajan Lal (Supra) was
also reiterated in the case of State of Andhra
Pradesh Vs. Golconda Linga Swami (2004) 6
SCC 522 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed as under:-

"5. Exercise of power under Section
482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the
exception and not the rule. The section does not
confer any new powers on the High Court. It
only saves the inherent power which the Court
possessed before the enactment of the Code. It
envisages three circumstances under which the
inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely:
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii)
to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii)
to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is
neither possible nor desirable to lay down any
inflexible rule which would govern the exercise
of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment
dealing with procedure can provide for all cases
that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have
inherent powers apart from express provisions
of law which are necessary for proper discharge
of functions and duties imposed upon them by
law. That is the doctrine which finds expression
in the section which merely recognises and
preserves inherent powers of the High Courts.
All courts, whether civil or criminal, possess in
the absence of any express provision, as
inherent in their constitution, all such powers as
are necessary to do the right and to undo a
wrong in course of administration of justice on
the principle quando lex aliquid alique concedit,
conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest
(when the law gives a person anything, it gives
him that without which it cannot exist). While
exercising powers under the section, the Court
does not function as a court of appeal or
revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section
though wide 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. It is to be exercised ex
debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice
for the administration of which alone courts
exist. Authority of the court exists for
advancement of justice and if any attempt is
made to abuse that authority so as to produce
injustice, the court has power to prevent such
abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the
court to allow any action which would result in
injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In
614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
exercise of the powers court would be justified
to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation
or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the
process of court or quashing of these
proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of
justice. When no offence is disclosed by the
complaint, the court may examine the question
of fact. When a complaint is sought to be
quashed, it is permissible to look into the
materials to assess what the complainant has
alleged and whether any offence is made out
even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

7. In dealing with the last category, it
is important to bear in mind the distinction
between a case where there is no legal evidence
or where there is evidence which is clearly
inconsistent with the accusations made, and a
case where there is legal evidence which, on
appreciation, may or may not support the
accusations. When 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 appreciation of it
accusation would not be sustained. That is the
function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no
doubt should not be an instrument of oppression,
or, needless harassment. Court should be
circumspect
and
judicious
in
exercising
discretion and should take all relevant facts and
circumstances into consideration before issuing
process, lest it would be an instrument in the
hands of a private complainant to unleash
vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the
same time the section is not an instrument
handed over to an accused to short-circuit a
prosecution and bring about its sudden death.....

8. As noted above, the powers
possessed by the High Court under Section 482
of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude
of the power requires great caution in its
exercise. Court must be careful to see that its
decision in exercise of this power is based on
sound principles. The inherent power should not
be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
High Court being the highest court of a State
should normally refrain from giving a prima
facie decision in a case where the entire facts
are incomplete and hazy, more so when the
evidence has not been collected and produced
before the Court and the issues involved,
whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and
cannot be seen in their true perspective without
sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast
rule can be laid down in regard to cases in
which the High Court will exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the
proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S.
Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC
(Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC 892] and Raghubir
Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1 :
(1964) 1 Cri LJ 1] .] It would not be proper for
the High Court to analyse the case of the
complainant in the light of all probabilities in
order to determine whether a conviction would
be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a
conclusion that the proceedings are to be
quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the
material before it and conclude that the
complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a
proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of
the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is
called for only in a case where the complaint
does not disclose any offence or is frivolous,
vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out
in the complaint do not constitute the offence of
which cognisance has been taken by the
Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash
the same in exercise of the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code. It is not,
however, necessary that there should be
meticulous analysis of the case before the trial
to find out whether the case would end in
conviction or acquittal. The complaint/FIR has
to be read as a whole. If it appears that on
consideration of the allegations in the light of
the statement made on oath of the complainant
or disclosed in the FIR that the ingredients of
11 All. Rajesh & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
615
the offence or offences are disclosed and there is
no material to show that the complaint/FIR is
mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event
there would be no justification for interference
by the High Court. When an information is
lodged at the police station and an offence is
registered, then the mala fides of the informant
would be of secondary importance. It is the
material collected during the investigation and
evidence led in court which decides the fate of
the accused person. The allegations of mala
fides
against
the
informant
are
of
no
consequence and cannot by themselves be the
basis for quashing the proceeding."

11. Yet, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v.
Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122 has
observed as under:-

"11. ... the powers possessed by the
High Court under Section 482 of the Code are
very wide and the very plenitude of the power
requires great caution in its exercise. Court
must be careful to see that its decision in
exercise of this power is based on sound
principles. The inherent power should not be
exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The
High Court being the highest court of a State
should normally refrain from giving a prima
facie decision in a case where the entire facts
are incomplete and hazy, more so when the
evidence has not been collected and produced
before the court and the issues involved, whether
factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be
seen in their true perspective without sufficient
material. of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be
laid down in regard to cases in which the High
Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction
of quashing the proceeding at any stage. It
would not be proper for the High Court to
analyse the case of the complainant in the light
of all probabilities in order to determine
whether a conviction would be sustainable and
on such premise arrive at a conclusion that the
proceedings are to be quashed. It would be
erroneous to assess the material before it and
conclude
that
the
complaint
cannot
be
proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on
complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to
quash the proceedings is called for only in a
case where the complaint does not disclose any
offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.
If the allegations set out in the complaint do not
constitute the offence of which cognizance has
been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the
High Court to quash the same in exercise of the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code.
It is not, however, necessary that there should be
meticulous analysis of the case before the trial
to find out whether the case would end in
conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be
read as a whole. If it appears that on
consideration of the allegations in the light of
the statement made on oath of the complainant
that the ingredients of the offence or offences
are disclosed and there is no material to show
that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or
vexatious, in that event there would be no
justification for interference by the High Court.
When an information is lodged at the police
station and an offence is registered, then the
mala fides of the informant would be of
secondary importance. It is the material
collected during the investigation and evidence
led in court which decides the fate of the
accused person. The allegations of mala fides
against the informant are of no consequence and
cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing
the proceedings."

12. Further, in the case of Sanapareday
Maheedhar Seshagiri v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(2007) 13 SCC 165 the Hon'ble Apex Court has
in pare 31 has further observed as under:-

"31.
A
careful
reading
of
the
abovenoted judgments makes it clear that the
High Court should be extremely cautious and
slow to interfere with the investigation and/or
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
trial of criminal cases and should not stall the
investigation and/or prosecution except when it
is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that
FIR does not disclose commission of any offence
or that the allegations contained in FIR do not
constitute any cognizable offence or that the
prosecution is barred by law or the High Court
is convinced that it is necessary to interfere to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In
dealing with such cases, the High Court has to
bear in mind that judicial intervention at the
threshold of the legal process initiated against a
person accused of committing offence is highly
detrimental to the larger public and societal
interest. The people and the society have a
legitimate expectation that those committing
offences either against an individual or the
society are expeditiously brought to trial and, if
found guilty, adequately punished. Therefore,
while deciding a petition filed for quashing FIR
or complaint or restraining the competent
authority from investigating the allegations
contained in FIR or complaint or for stalling the
trial of the case, the High Court should be
extremely careful and circumspect. If the
allegations contained in FIR or complaint
disclose commission of some crime, then the
High Court must keep its hands off and allow
the investigating agency to complete the
investigation without any fetter and also refrain
from passing order which may impede the trial.
The High Court should not go into the merits
and demerits of the allegations simply because
the petitioner alleges malus animus against the
author of FIR or the complainant. The High
Court must also refrain from making imaginary
journey in the realm of possible harassment
which may be caused to the petitioner on
account of investigation of FIR or complaint.
Such a course will result in miscarriage of
justice and would encourage those accused of
committing crimes to repeat the same. However,
if the High Court is satisfied that the complaint
does not disclose commission of any offence or
prosecution is barred by limitation or that the
proceedings of criminal case would result in
failure of justice, then it may exercise inherent
power under Section 482 CrPC."

13. Further in the case of State of
Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2
SCC 779 the Supreme Court has held in
categorically terms that the inherent powers so
conferred u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can only be exercised
in an appropriate case where no cognizable
offence is disclosed in the FIR.

14. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has reiterated the principles of law as
enumerated right from the decision in the case of
R. P. Kapoor (Supra) and in the case of M/S
Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State
Of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR
2021 SC 192 and the paragraph no. 23 culled the
following
propositions
of
law
which
is
enumerated hereinunder:-

i) Police has the statutory right and
duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV
of the Code to investigate into a cognizable
offence;

ii) Courts would not thwart any
investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) It is only in cases where no
cognizable offence or offence of any kind is
disclosed in the first information report that the
Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it
has been observed, in the ''rarest of rare cases
(not to be confused with the formation in the
context of death penalty).

v) While examining an FIR/complaint,
quashing of which is sought, the court cannot
embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
11 All. Rajesh & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
617
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to
be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR
should be an exception rather than an ordinary
rule;

iii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred
from usurping the jurisdiction of the police,
since the two organs of the State operate in two
specific spheres of activities and one ought not
to tread over the other sphere;

ix) The functions of the judiciary and
the police are complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where
non-interference would result in miscarriage of

justice, the Court and the judicial
process should not interfere at the stage of
investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers
of the Court do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its
whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not
an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts
and details relating to the offence reported.
Therefore, when the investigation by the police
is in progress, the court should not go into the
merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must
be permitted to complete the investigation. It
would
be
premature
to
pronounce
the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the
complaint/FIR
does
not
deserve
to
be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of
process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no
substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file
an appropriate report/summary before the
learned Magistrate which may be considered by
the learned Magistrate in accordance with the
known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide
power requires the court to be more cautious. It
casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the
court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the
court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the
parameters of quashing and the self-restraint
imposed
by
law,
more
particularly
the
parameters laid down by this Court in the cases
of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra),
has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;

xv) When a prayer for quashing the
FIR is made by the alleged accused and the
court when it exercises the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the
allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a
cognizable offence or not. The court is not
required to consider on merits whether or not
the merits of the allegations make out a
cognizable offence and the court has to permit
the investigating agency/police to investigate the
allegations in the FIR;

xvi) The aforesaid parameters would
be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are
required to be considered by the High Court
while passing an interim order in a quashing
petition in exercise of powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. However, an interim order
of stay of investigation during the pendency of
the quashing petition can be passed with
circumspection. Such an interim order should
not require to be passed routinely, casually
and/or mechanically. Normally, when the
investigation is in progress and the facts are
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
hazy and the entire evidence/material is not
before the High Court, the High Court should
restrain itself from passing the interim order of
not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be
adopted" and the accused should be relegated to
apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438
Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High
Court shall not and as such is not justified in
passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no
coercive steps" either during the investigation or
till the investigation is completed and/or till the
final report/chargesheet is filed under Section
173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the
quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

xvii) Even in a case where the High
Court is prima facie of the opinion that an
exceptional case is made out for grant of interim
stay of further investigation, after considering
the broad parameters while exercising the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred
to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief
reasons why such an interim order is warranted
and/or is required to be passed so that it can
demonstrate the application of mind by the
Court and the higher forum can consider what
was weighed with the High Court while passing
such an interim order.

xviii) Whenever an interim order is
passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps
to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters,
the High Court must clarify what does it mean
by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term
"no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to
be too vague and/or broad which can be
misunderstood and/or misapplied.

15. In nutshell, it can be safely said that
while exercising the powers under section 482
Cr.P.C. the courts of law have to be cautious in
exercising of power as extent and the limit of the
power is nowhere codified or defined anywhere.
The exercise of inherent power is to done in a
manner in which there is no scope of injustice as
the powers so exercised under the said
provisions is to prevent injustice and to secure
the ends of justice. However, the powers so
conferred
under
section
482
Cr.P.C.
as
interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
defining the scope and the ambit as well as also
extent is to be in such a manner there should be
prevention of judicial process being exercised by
vindictive litigants.

16. Though, obviously the powers so
exercised cannot be put in straitjacket formula as
the same has to be exercised as per the facts and
circumstances of individual cases in hand.
Needless to point out that in an appropriate case
and in the light of mandate of the Hon'ble Apex
Court as referred to above the High courts are
not helpless in undoing any wrong or injustice as
the only purpose for insertion of section 482
Cr.P.C. is to secure justice and eliminate the
chances of any accused being allowed to walk
away. Nonetheless, the inherent powers so
exercised under section 482 Cr.P.C. is also
engrafted just in order to wriggle out an innocent
person, who has been falsely implicated in a
criminal case. In other words, section 482
Cr.P.C. is a devise in eliminating injustice.

17. On the touch stone of the aforesaid
proposition of law as culled out by the Hon'ble
Apex court the present case is to be decided.

18. Learned counsel for the applicant has
sought to argue that he has not committed any
offence as alleged in the FIR culminating into
submission of charge sheet. In other words the
principal submission of the learned counsel for
the applicant is to the extent that he is innocent
and the entire allegation so sought to be levelled
against him are false and mala fide act. The
learned counsel for the applicant has argued on
factual score.
11 All. Manish Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
619

19. The learned A.G.A. has argued that at a
pre-trial stage, the factual issues cannot be gone
into and no roving inquiry can be made at this
stage in exercise of inherent jurisdiction
contained under sectio 482 Cr.P.C. According to
the learned A.G.A., the factual issues so sought
to be canvassed by the applicant is to be dealt
with at the stage of trial as it might be a defence
of the applicant who as a named accused.

20. Having gone through the rival
submission of the contesting parties, this Court
finds that admittedly FIR was lodged on
22.11.2018 by the opposite party no 2 against
the applicant being FIR No. 1363 of 2018
pursuant
thereto
the
proceedings
as
contemplated under section Cr.P.C. 1973 was
followed and charge sheet was submitted on
10.06.2019 by the Investigating Officer and on
11.09.2020 cognizance whereof was taken.

21. On a pointed repeated query being
made to the counsel for the applicant as to
whether there was any jurisdictional error
committed by the court below while issuing
summoning order dated 11.09.2020, the learned
counsel for the applicant could not point out any
jurisdictional error. However, the learned
counsel for the applicant has sought to argue on
the factual aspects of the matter so as to contend
that the allegations which are false and incorrect
and further an argument was also sought to be
made to such an extent that no cognizable
offence is being made out from the bare perusal
of the FIR.

22. As noticed above, this Court under
inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot
embark any roving inquiry at pre-trial stage.

23. The Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly
cautioned the High Court while exercising the
power under section 482 Cr.P.C. being inherent
powers that it should be exercised sparingly and
in circumspection in the rarest of rare case as
inherent powers cannot be exercised to scuttle
the investigation at pre-trial stage.

24. This Court while going through the
FIR as well as charge sheet and the pleadings set
forth by the learned counsel for the applicant,
finds inability to accept the argument so sought
to be raised by the counsel for the applicant.

25. Resultantly, in absence of any infirmity
or illegality pointed out by the learned counsel
for the applicant, no good ground is made to
quash the charge sheet as well as the summoning
order, as even otherwise, this Court find that this
is not a fit case wherein inherit jurisdiction
power under section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973, be
invoked.

26. Accordingly, there is no merit in the
present application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed.

27. However, needless to point out that it is
always open for the applicant to prefer
appropriate application before the court below
seeking bail.
----------
(2021)12ILR A619
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 23428 of 2021

Manish ...Applicant
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sanjay Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: