# Raju Lawaniya v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties - **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 615 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2019-09-18 - **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 32682 of 2019 - **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raju-lawaniya-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-44855 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420, 504 and 506 and Cr.P.C., 1973 - Section 482 - Summoning Order- Passed on basis of reiteration of the occurrence by complainant in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and by two witnesses of complainant, examined under Section 202 of Cr.P.C - Case instituted as a counterblast -is to be seen by trial Court at the time of appreciation of evidence - In the exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.Pc., High Court cannot analyze factual evidence. (Para 5,6,8 & 9) Present complaint is of offence of deception, resulting in forgery punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. wherein Rs. 2 lacs was taken with an assurance for getting job at Railway to son of complainant but job was neither given nor money was returned back, for which persistent demand was being made by complainant and protest was being lodged, as a result of this , assault with abuse and a criminal intimidation was made by accused persons, when complainant and his family members were at their home. This occurrence was reiterated by complainant in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C and by two witnesses of complainant, examined under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Previous incident or report of same or pendency of criminal trial, is of no concern with present occurrence, it may be a motive or basis of difference by either side, which is to be seen by trial Court in appreciation of evidence at the time of appreciation and judicial decision making. This Court is not to analyse the factual evidence in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed (E-3) Case law relied upon/discussed: - ## Text 2 All. Raju Lawaniya Vs State of U.P. & Anr. 615 (2019)10ILR A 615 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J. Application u/s 482 No. 32682 of 2019 Raju Lawaniya ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Sanjay Singh Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420, 504 and 506 and Cr.P.C., 1973 - Section 482 - Summoning Order- Passed on basis of reiteration of the occurrence by complainant in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and by two witnesses of complainant, examined under Section 202 of Cr.P.C - Case instituted as a counterblast -is to be seen by trial Court at the time of appreciation of evidence - In the exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.Pc., High Court cannot analyze factual evidence. (Para 5,6,8 & 9) Present complaint is of offence of deception, resulting in forgery punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. wherein Rs. 2 lacs was taken with an assurance for getting job at Railway to son of complainant but job was neither given nor money was returned back, for which persistent demand was being made by complainant and protest was being lodged, as a result of this , assault with abuse and a criminal intimidation was made by accused persons, when complainant and his family members were at their home. This occurrence was reiterated by complainant in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C and by two witnesses of complainant, examined under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Previous incident or report of same or pendency of criminal trial, is of no concern with present occurrence, it may be a motive or basis of difference by either side, which is to be seen by trial Court in appreciation of evidence at the time of appreciation and judicial decision making. This Court is not to analyse the factual evidence in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed (E-3) Case law relied upon/discussed: - 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 St. Represented by Insp. of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296 5. Dhanlakshmi Vs R. Prasana Kumar (1990) Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 49 6. St. 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. for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by Raju Lawaniya against State of U.P. and Mahesh Chand with a prayer for quashing summoning order and entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 5904 of 2017, (Mahesh Chand Vs. Raju Lawaniya), under Sections 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Tajganj, District 616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Agra, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial MagistrateIIIrd, Agra, District Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that accused applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very complaint case because of his registration of a case of theft of his motorcycle, which was recovered from the possession of son of Mahesh Chand, for which charge-sheet has been filed and no relief from this Court was granted to him. This occurrence was of year 2014 and with a view to influence above criminal case, this counterblast is by complainant, wherein no offence was made out, on the basis of evidence produced before the Magistrate, even then summoning order was passed, hence, this application with above prayer. 4. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the present proceeding. 5. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and gone through the impugned summoning order, it is apparent that the present complaint is of offence of deception, resulting forgery punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. wherein Rs. 2 lacs was taken with an assurance for getting job at Railway to son of complainant but this job was neither given nor money was returned back, for which persistent demand was being made by complainant and protest was being lodged, as a result of this on 25.6.2017, assault with abuse and a criminal intimidation was made by accused persons, when complainant and his family members were at their home. This occurrence was reiterated by complainant in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. This has further been reiterated by two witnesses of complainant, examined under Section 202 of Cr.P.C and trial Court, on the basis of those testimony, has passed impugned summoning order dated 5.2.2019 regarding Raju Lawaniya for offence punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. 6. Previous incident or report of same or pendency of criminal trial, is of no concern with present occurrence, it may be a motive or basis of difference by either side, which is to be seen by trial Court in appreciation of evidence at the time of appreciation and judicial decision making. Regarding present occurrence, there is testimony of complainant and his two witnesses on the basis of which this summoning order has been passed. 7. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is quoted as under:- "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 2 All. Akhtar Ali & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr. 617 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". 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 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". 8. Hence, this Court is not to analyze the factual evidence in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, this proceeding merits its dismissal. 9. The present application stands dismissed, accordingly. ---------- (2019)10ILR A 617 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.09.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J. Application u/s 482 No. 32637 of 2019 Akhtar Ali & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties Counsel for the Applicants: Sri Pavan Kishore, Sri Mahendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for the Opposite Parties: