# Ram Sahay & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 142
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No.37366 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-sahay-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44760
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law -Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Minute details,
involving
appreciation
of
facts
and
evidence,
cannot
be
looked
into
in
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., being outside
the limits propounded by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. (Para 5,6,8)

Criminal Application rejected (E-3)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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".

10.

In
exercise
of
inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
this Court is not to analise the factual
aspect because the same being question of
trial and of fact to be seen before trial
Court. Hence, in overall appreciation of
facts and law, mentioned as above, this
application merits its dismissal.

11.The application is accordingly
dismissed.

11. The application is accordingly
dismissed.
----------

(2019)11ILR A142

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM , J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.37366 of 2019
u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Ram Sahay & Ors ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Munna Prasad Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.
A. Criminal Law -Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Minute details,
involving
appreciation
of
facts
and
evidence,
cannot
be
looked
into
in
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., being outside
the limits propounded by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. (Para 5,6,8)

Criminal Application rejected (E-3)

List of cases cited: -

1. St. of A.P Vs Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT (2010)
(6) SC 588

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., Rep. Insp. of Police,
(2006) 7 SCC 296

5. Dhanlakshmi Vs R.Prasana Kumar, AIR
(1990) SC 494

6. St. of Bihar Vs Murad Ali Khan, AIR (1989) SC 1

7. Amrawati & anr. Vs St. of U.P., (2005) Cri.L.J 755

8. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs St. of U.P.
(2009) 4 SCC 437
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J. )

1. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Ram Sahay,
Shriram, Nisha Devi, Vandana and Ajay
against State of U.P. and Hari Lal Yadav
with
prayer
for
quashing
entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4314
of 2019, Harilal Yadav Vs. Ram Sahay
and others, under Sections 323, 504, 452,
379
I.P.C., P.S.
Saraimeer,
district
Azamgarh, pending in court of A.C.J.M,
Court No. 12, Azamgarh.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned A.G.A. for the
State.
Perused
the
records.
3 All. Ram Sahay & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
143

3. Learned counsel for applicants
argued that it is a false case got registered
after lapse of two years for an occurrence
for which Case Crime No. 101 of 2015
was got registered on 7.6.2015 for the
offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 452,
352, 323, 325, 504 I.P.C. against Harilal,
Kalpu Yadav, Shailendra, and three
others, wherein investigation resulted in
submission of charge sheet and the same
is pending. The same occurrence has been
complained in the present complaint and
general allegations against six accused
persons were levelled, but one Ravindra
was not summoned and others five
applicants have been summoned for the
offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 452,
379 I.P.C., whereas this was apparently a
counter blast with a view to harass
informant and prosecution witnesses of
above previously instituted case and those
medical documents were of 7.6.2015,
whereas medico legal reports of the
applicants were of 6.6.2015 i.e. instant
medical report. Hence this application be
allowed and thereby proceeding of
complaint case be quashed.

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

5. Having heard learned counsel for
applicants and learned AGA, it is
apparent that the occurrence of 6.6.2015
is undisputed fact. The same occurrence
has been complained in the present
complaint. Name of accused persons is
there in above previously registered F.I.R.
Accused persons are complainant in the
present case. They too have suffered
injuries,
which
were
examined
on
7.6.2015. They have moved application
before police authority for getting their
case
registered,
but
this
was
not
registered. Hence this complaint was
filed. The trial Judge has recorded
statements of complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C.
as well as of witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C.
They are in full corroboration with each
other having full reiteration of statement
of complainant and on the basis of same
learned
trial
Magistrate
passed
the
summoning order. Minute details, being
argued, being appreciation of facts and
evidence, are not be made in the
proceeding u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in exercise of
inherent power.

6. 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
144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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".

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

9. Hence, under above facts and
circumstances, there is no ground for this
application.

10. Accordingly, the application is
rejected.

11. However, in case the applicants
surrender
before
before
the
court
concerned within 30 days from today and
apply for bail, it will decide their bail
application in wake of the law laid down
by this Court in the Full Bench decision
of Amrawati and another Vs. State of
U.P., 2005 Cri.L.J 755 affirmed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of
U.P. (2009) 4 SCC 437.

12. For a period of 30 days from
today, which shall not be extended further
in any case, no coercive action shall be
taken against the applicants, in the above
mentioned case.
----------

(2019)11ILR A145

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.10.2019