# Ram Bharose Lal & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 506
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-07
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 43722 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-bharose-lal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45094
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482-
Counterblast
case-
Previous
registration of a case crime number may
be a motive or a cause for the present
occurrence-are questions of fact to be
seen by the Trial court, during course of
trial. Contention made in the complaint
has been reiterated by the complainant
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C and by
witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.-
At the time of summoning, under Section
204 of Cr.P.C. the Magistrate has found
that all ingredients required for passing
order of summoning for the offences are
present in the statements recorded by
the learned Trial court- In exercise of
inherent power, under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., High Court is not expected to
make meticulous analysis of factual
aspect because the same is a question, to
be gone into, during course of trial, by
the Trial court. (Para 7 & 8)

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

List of cases cited: -

## Text

506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. The Court cannot permit the
prosecution to go on if the case falls in any
one of the categories as illustrated and
enumerated by the Apex Court in State of
Haryana
Versus
Bhajan
Lal
1992
SCC(Crl) 426 (Para 102) supra.

24. The Court, therefore, has no
hesitation, whatsoever, in concluding that
judicial conscience of the Court on the
basis of material before it has persuaded to
quash the criminal proceedings pending
against the applicant in exercise of its
inherent powers as vested in it under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court is quite
conscious of the fact that the victim has
named the applicant in her statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., but the names of
accused
were
disclosed
to
her
by
themselves and during investigation they
were not put up for identification in order
to fix their identity which would have
clinched the issue and applicant and other
co-accused, could not have escaped from
the clutches of law. Therefore, in my
considered opinion, it is a fit case where
the Court in exercise of its inherent power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should quash
the
entire
proceedings
against
the
applicant as the same squarely falls within
the para 3 & 7 of Bhajan Lal's case.
Admittedly, it is not disputed by opposite
party no.2 that the applicant and other coaccused whose names were introduced
during investigation were not known to
them from before, as admittedly the
applicant
is
a
resident
of
district
Ghaziabad and no first information report
was lodged either by opposite party no.2
or her alleged husband who himself is
facing trial under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C.
at Ghaziabad in the year 2013 itself or
moved any application for the alleged
incident be investigated thoroughly by the
police
station
within
whose
local
jurisdiction the alleged offence of gangrape had allegedly taken place. Though, as
noted time and again that no date, time,
parentage and residence of the accused
whose names were introduced by the
prosecutrix with an ulterior motive after
two
months
of
kidnapping
by
accused/witness
Sukhpal
regarding

commission of gang-rape as alleged
at Sahibabad, district Ghaziabad has been
disclosed by the victim and co-accused
Sukhpal in the statements recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

25. Therefore, in view of above, the
supplementary charge-sheet and the entire
proceedings arising out of it in the
aforesaid case are hereby quashed so far as
the applicant is concerned.

26. The present Criminal Misc.
Application
(U/s
482
Cr.P.C.),
accordingly, stands allowed.

27. A copy of this order be certified
to the lower court forthwith.
----------
(2020)1ILR 506

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 43722 of 2019

Ram Bharose Lal & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Ashish Kumar, Sri Neeraj Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.
1 All. Ram Bharose Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
507
A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482-
Counterblast
case-
Previous
registration of a case crime number may
be a motive or a cause for the present
occurrence-are questions of fact to be
seen by the Trial court, during course of
trial. Contention made in the complaint
has been reiterated by the complainant
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C and by
witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.-
At the time of summoning, under Section
204 of Cr.P.C. the Magistrate has found
that all ingredients required for passing
order of summoning for the offences are
present in the statements recorded by
the learned Trial court- In exercise of
inherent power, under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., High Court is not expected to
make meticulous analysis of factual
aspect because the same is a question, to
be gone into, during course of trial, by
the Trial court. (Para 7 & 8)

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

List of cases cited: -

1. M/S. Pepsi Food Ltd. & anr. Vs. Spl. Judicial
Magistrate & ors, 1998, UPCr.R 118

2. St. of A.P Vs. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010
(6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767

3. Hamida Vs. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474

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

5. Popular Muthiah Vs. St., Rep. by Inspector of
Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296

6. Dhanlakshmi Vs. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990)
Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494

7. St. of Bih. 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, Ram
Bharose Lal, Jai Singh and Kallu, against
State of U.P. and Smt. Meena, with a
prayer for quashing of entire criminal
proceeding as well as setting aside
summoning order, dated 30.7.2019, passed
by III Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Budaun, in
SST No.1478 of 2019 (Complaint Case
No.49 of 2018), Meena vs. Ram Bharose
Lal and others, under Sections 392 and
354
of
IPC,
Police
Station-Bisauli,
District-Budaun.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants
argued that it was a false and malicious
accusation, filed by way of an application,
under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and was
treated as a complaint case, as a counterblast of case crime no.675 of 2017, for
offences, punishable, under Sections 392
and 354 of IPC of Police Station-Bisauli,
District Budaun, for which a report was
lodged by Ram Bharose Lal against Hira
Lal, when Hira Lal outraged modesty of
victim,
daughter
of
informant
on
7.10.2017, wherein a chargesheet has been
filed and as a counter-blast case, wife of
Hira Lal, has filed this case against
applicants, wherein, applicant no.1, is
father, whereas, applicant nos. 1 and 2 are
his sons, with false accusation and III
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(DAA), Budaun, acting as the Magistrate,
has failed to appreciate facts and law
placed before it and passed impugned
summoning order without application of
judicial mind, with above prayer.

3. To bolden his submission,
learned counsel for applicants has placed
reliance on an order, dated 29.8.2016, of
another coordinate Bench of this Court,
passed in Application, U/S No.25387 of
2016, Brijveer Singh and another vs. State
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of U.P. and another, wherein, law laid
down by Apex Court, in the case of M/S.
Pepsi Food Ltd. & another vs. Special
Judicial Magistrate & others, 1998,
UPCr.R 118, has been discussed.

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

5. From very perusal of the Application,
moved, under Section 156 of Cr.P.C., it is
apparent that it was filed by the applicantcomplainant, Meena, wife of Hira Lal, resident
of Mohammadpur, Mai, Police Station-Bisauli,
District Budaun, against Ram Bharose, son of
Mohan Lal, Jai Singh and Kallu, both sons of
Ram Bharose, for offences, punishable, under
Sections 392 and 354 of IPC, with this
contention that on 2.11.2017, at about 9.00
PM, while, applicant, alongwith her kids, was
all alone at her home, and her husband was at
field, Ram Bharose, Jai Singh and Kallu,
armed with weapons, did criminal trespass in
the house of the complainant. They hurled
abuse, assaulted her and threatened of dire
consequences. They also outraged her modesty
by obscene act and took away Rs.5,000/-, in
cash, and ornaments as well. Upon hue and
cry, many persons rushed on the spot, then,
they ran away. Incident was reported at the
concerned Police Station as well as to the
Senior Superintendent of Police, but to no
avail. Hence, a complaint, for registration of a
case crime number, under above offences and
for its investigation by the Police Station,
concerned.

6. Learned Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (DAA), Budaun,
acting as the Magistrate, took cognizance
over it and decided to proceed, treating it
to
be
a
complaint
case,
wherein,
complainant was examined, under Section
202 of Cr.P.C. and her two witnesses,
Puran and Chatrapal, under Section 202 of
Cr.P.C.
Learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (DAA), Budaun,
acting as the Magistrate, on the basis of
those evidences, collected by him, in his
enquiry, passed impugned order for
summoning of accused persons, for
offences, punishable, under Sections 392
and 354 of IPC.

7. Previous registration of a case
crime number, upon a report of applicant
no.1, Ram Bharose, against Hira Lal, is
being said to be a motive for this counterblast case, but, this may be a motive for
this occurrence or this may be a cause for
the present occurrence. All these are
questions of fact to be seen by the Trial
court, during course of trial. But the
contention made in the complaint has been
reiterated by the complainant in its
enquiry, made, under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C., as well as, by witnesses, while,
being examined, under Section 202 of of
Cr.P.C., at the time of summoning, under
Section 204 of Cr.P.C. In all those laws
cited by the applicants, it is well settled
that only prima facie case and its existence
is to be seen by the Magistrate, at the stage
of summoning, though, it should be by
application of judicial mind and not in a
routine, but, in the present case, by
application of judicial mind, Additional
Sessions
Judge/Spcial
Judge
(DAA),
acting as the Magistrate, ha found hat all
such ingredients, which are required to be
attracted for passing order of summoning,
under above offences, are present, in the
statements recorded by the learned Trial
court, hence, passed impugned summoning
order, as above.

8. Hence, under all above facts and
circumstances, this Court, in exercise of
inherent power, under Section 482 of
1 All. Ram Bharose Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
509
Cr.P.C.,
is
not
expected
to
make
meticulous analysis of factual aspect
because the same is a question, to be gone
into, during course of trial, by the Trial
court.

9. 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".

10. 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".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.

12. However, it is directed that if the
applicants appear and surrender before the
court below within 30 days from today and
apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be
considered and decided in view of the
510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

13. For a period of 30 days from
today, no coercive action shall be taken
against the applicants.

14. In case, if the applicants do not
appear before the Court below within the
aforesaid period, coercive action shall be
taken against them.
----------
(2020)1ILR 510

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 44378 of 2019

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Vipin Chandra Pandey

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

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482-In exercise of inherent power, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., High Court is not
expected to make a meticulous analysis
of factual aspect because the same is a
question to be gone into, during course of
trial, by the Trial court. (Para 5)

Criminal Misc. 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 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

(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, Nahar
Singh, Manmohan @ Teetu, Deepu @
Devendra and Manoj, with a prayer for
setting aside summoning order, dated
19.9.2019,
passed
by
the
Judicial
Magistrate,
Sadabad,
Hathras,
and,
thereby, entire criminal proceeding, in
Complaint Case No. 164 of 2018, Shashi
Prabha vs. Nahar Singh and others, under
Sections-452, 323 and 354 of IPC, Police
Station-Sahpau, District-Hathras

2. Learned counsel for applicants argued
that a civil suit was filed for cancellation of sale
deed, which was got executed by the
complainant and as a result of the same this
malicious prosecution, in misuse of process of
law, wherein, there is no medico legal report of
any injury, but, even this, summoning order has
been passed. Hence, for avoiding abuse of
process of law, 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.