# Ramesh Chandra & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 638
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-18
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 32634 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-44719
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A and Cr.P.C., 1973 - Section 482 -
Applicants
being
father-in-law
and
mother-in-law summoned for offence
punishable under Section 498-A, on basis
of statements recorded under sections
200 & 202 of the Cr.P.C. and after giving
full reasons-Jurisdiction under section
397 Cr.P.C. - Revisional court is never
expected to analyse factual aspect of the
matter -Jurisdiction under section 482 of
the
Code
-
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 or whether the allegations in
the complaint are likely to be established
by evidence or not. (Para 4,5,6,7 & 8)
2 All. Ramesh Chandra & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.
639
Husband and his family members caused mental
and physical cruelty with regard to demand of
additional
dowry
resulting
in
ouster
of
Complainant from her nuptial house, but,
subsequently, taken back by her husband and his
relatives. She delivered a female child which
infuriated
them
culminating
in
a
specific
occurrence committed by husband, father-in-law,
and mother-in-law, (both present applicants,
herein), in which demand of dowry, cruelty with
regard to it, abuse and threat were given by the
accused persons. Complaint was filed and the
version was reiterated by the complainant, in her
statement, recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C
and witnesses, in their statements, recorded,
under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Hence, on the basis of
those
evidences,
accused
persons
were
summoned for offence, punishable, under Section
498-A of IPC and this summoning was with full
reasons and was based on evidence on record.

Revisional court, in exercise of its power of
revision, conferred under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.,
is never expected to analyze factual aspect of the
matter and as such Revisional court passed the
impugned order well within its jurisdiction
confirming the summoning order.

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 or whether
the allegations in the complaint are likely to be
established by evidence or not. That is the
function of the trial Judge/Court.

Hence, Application under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., stands dismissed accordingly with
direction to the Applicants to surrender and
apply for bail before the learned Court below.

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed (E-3)

Case law relied upon/discussed: -

## Text

638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded
as above.

8. In the present case, complainant
was examined, under Sections 200 and
202
of
Cr.P.C.
wherein
she
has
specifically levelled accusations against
her husband only. She has said that she
was married with Vivek Kumar on
30.4.2013 at Chirgaon and Vivek Kumar
was in Job at Mumbari. She, after her
marriage, made her first entry in his
nuptial house at Chirgaon and she
remained there for 15 days where her
husband used to to always say that the
marriage was settled for Rs.10 laksh ,as
dowry, whereas complainant's father had
given cash of Rs.8 Lakhs and house hold
goods, valuing to Rs.2 lakhs. Complainant
remained with her husband for one year
and she conceived pregnancy, when she
has been sent to Baruasagar, where she
delivered a family child on 7.7.2014.
Again she was taken to Mumbai and was
illtreated by her husband Vivek Kumar,
who
demanded
Rs.2
lakhs
as
the
additional dowry there-at. He was a
government employee in Railways, who
used to give her of of life and caused
cruelty with the complainant. Her brotherin-law was also in Railways and was
having a flat separately at a distance of
ten steps from her nuptial house. This
illtreatment was owing to exhortion by
husband's sister-in-law. Her husband
beaten her, while at Mumbai. Meaning
thereby, no recital was there against inlaws regarding demand of dowry. Even,
in the complaint, it has been written that
gift was given to her husband by
complaint's parents. Thus, on the basis of
it, only husband was summoned for above
offence and this order was confirmed in
the revision as well by the revisional
Court.

9. In view of above, the orders,
impugned, do not suffer from any
illegality or irregularity or defeat ends of
justice. Hence, this proceeding, by way of
Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
merits rejection and as such Application
stands dismissed accordingly.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 638

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 32634 of 2019

Ramesh Chandra & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Brajesh Shukla

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

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A and Cr.P.C., 1973 - Section 482 -
Applicants
being
father-in-law
and
mother-in-law summoned for offence
punishable under Section 498-A, on basis
of statements recorded under sections
200 & 202 of the Cr.P.C. and after giving
full reasons-Jurisdiction under section
397 Cr.P.C. - Revisional court is never
expected to analyse factual aspect of the
matter -Jurisdiction under section 482 of
the
Code
-
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 or whether the allegations in
the complaint are likely to be established
by evidence or not. (Para 4,5,6,7 & 8)
2 All. Ramesh Chandra & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.
639
Husband and his family members caused mental
and physical cruelty with regard to demand of
additional
dowry
resulting
in
ouster
of
Complainant from her nuptial house, but,
subsequently, taken back by her husband and his
relatives. She delivered a female child which
infuriated
them
culminating
in
a
specific
occurrence committed by husband, father-in-law,
and mother-in-law, (both present applicants,
herein), in which demand of dowry, cruelty with
regard to it, abuse and threat were given by the
accused persons. Complaint was filed and the
version was reiterated by the complainant, in her
statement, recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C
and witnesses, in their statements, recorded,
under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Hence, on the basis of
those
evidences,
accused
persons
were
summoned for offence, punishable, under Section
498-A of IPC and this summoning was with full
reasons and was based on evidence on record.

Revisional court, in exercise of its power of
revision, conferred under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.,
is never expected to analyze factual aspect of the
matter and as such Revisional court passed the
impugned order well within its jurisdiction
confirming the summoning order.

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 or whether
the allegations in the complaint are likely to be
established by evidence or not. That is the
function of the trial Judge/Court.

Hence, Application under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., stands dismissed accordingly with
direction to the Applicants to surrender and
apply for bail before the learned Court below.

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed (E-3)

Case law relied upon/discussed: -

1. St. of A.P. 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
7. Amrawati & anr. Vs St. of U.P. reported in
2004 (57) ALR 290
8. (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra
Pratap Singh Vs St. of U.P.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J.)

1. This Application, under Section 482
of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (In short
'Cr.P.C.) has been filed, by the applicants,
Ramesh Chandra and Smt. Ramwati, with a
prayer for quashing of the summoning order,
dated 3.10.2018, passed by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, as well as
order, dated 10.5.2019, passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Amroha, and a
further prayer for quashing of entire criminal
proceeding of Complaint Case No. 730 of
2018 (Sushama vs. Mahendra singh and
others), under Section 498-A of Indian Penal
Code, Police Station Mahila Thana, District
Amroha.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants
argued that both the applicants are fatherin-law
and
mother-in-law
of
the
complainant
and
they
have
been
summoned for offence, punishable, under
Section
498-A,
whereas
similar
accusation was also made against sisterin-law
and
brother-in-law
of
the
complainant, who were also summoned,
but in a proceeding, filed by them,
proceeding, against them has been stayed.
Applicants have no concern, but both the
courts failed to appreciate facts placed
640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before them. Hence, this proceeding, with
above prayer.

3. Learned AGA opposed this
proceeding.

4. From very perusal of the complaint,
statements, recorded, under Sections 200
and 202 of Cr.P.C. and other materials, it is
apparent that the complainant was married
on 16.1.2012, with Mahendra, Son of
Ramesh Chandra and Smt. Ramwati.
Husband,
Mahendra,
and
his
family
members were not satisfied with dowry
given in the marriage. They were causing
mental and physical cruelty with regard to
demand of additional dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs.
She was ousted from her nuptial house, but,
subsequently, taken back by her husband
and his relatives on 1.10.2014. She
delivered a female child on 11.9.2017,
which furiated them. A specific occurrence
of 11.3.2018 of 5.00 PM has been said on
oath, which was said to have been
committed by Mahendra, husband, fatherin-law, Ramesh Chandra and mother-inlaw, Smt. Ramwati (both present applicants,
herein), with Surendra and Chaman @
Laxmi in which demand of dowry, cruelty
with regard to it, abuse and threat were
given by those accused persons. Thenafter,
this complaint was filed and this version
was reiterated by the complainant, in her
statement, recorded under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C and her two witnesses, CW-1,
Devendra Kumar and CW-2, Premwati, in
their statements, recorded, under Section
202 of Cr.P.C. Hence, on the basis of those
evidences, accused persons were summoned
for offence, punishable, under Section 498A of IPC and this summoning was with full
reasons and was based on evidence on
record.

5. Revisional court, in exercise of its
power of revision,
conferred under
Section 397 of Cr.P.C., is never expected
to analyze factual aspect of the matter and
as such Revisional court passed the
impugned
order
well
within
its
jurisdiction confirming the summoning
order.

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
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
2 All. Smt. Kanta Devi & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.
641
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".

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

8. In view of what has been
discussed above, this proceeding, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., lacks merits and
as such, this Application, under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., stands dismissed.

9. 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 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.

10. For a period of 30 days from
today, no coercive action shall be taken
against the applicants. However, in case,
the applicants do not appear before the
Court below within the aforesaid period,
coercive action shall be taken against
them.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 641

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 32617 of 2019

Smt. Kanta Devi & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus