# Ramesh Kumar Patel v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1692
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-06
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 44730 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-kumar-patel-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45673
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482 - Discharge application rejectedComplaint- contention of complainant
was reiterated in the statement u/s 200
1694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Cr.P.C. corroborated by statement
recorded u/s 202 of Cr.P.C.- No ground
for setting aside impugned summoning
order or proceeding of criminal casePrevious application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.
relief for quashing summoning order
rejected by a Coordinate Bench-Order
issuing Non-Bailable Warrant is a process
of the court and it has been issued only in
the absence of accused applicant-High
Court, in exercise of inherent power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 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 7 & 8)

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

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. Vijendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1693
proceeding". The words "sufficient ground
for proceeding" again suggest that ground
should be made out in the complaint for
proceeding against the respondent. It is
settled law that at the time of issuing of the
process the Magistrate is required to see
only the allegations in the complaint and
where allegations in the complaint or the
charge-sheet do not constitute an offence
against a person, the complaint is liable to
be dismissed."

16. In the case of Anita Malhotra v.
Apparel Export Promotion Council,
(2012) 1 SCC 520, the Apex Court had
held as under:

"As rightly stated so, though it is
not proper for the High Court to consider
the defence of the accused or conduct a
roving enquiry in respect of merits of the
accusation, but if on the face of the
document which is beyond suspicion or
doubt, placed by the accused and if it is
considered that the accusation against her
cannot stand, in such a matter, in order to
prevent injustice or abuse of process, it is
incumbent on the High Court to look into
those document/documents which have a
bearing on the matter even at the initial
stage and grant relief to the person
concerned by exercising jurisdiction u/s
482 of the Code."

17. In view of law laid down by the
Courts, as above, the factual aspect, which
is apparently on record, is in support of
above summoning order, this Court, in
exercise of inherent power, under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to make
analytic analysis of factual aspect, having
been submitted by learned counsel for
applicants, that applicants are old age
persons, having no criminal antecedents,
and one of whom is also a Government
employee, and is posted as the Secretary of
Mandi Samiti, at Aligarh, but facing this
false prosecution, being malicious, is to be
seen, by the Trial court, at the time of
appreciation of evidence, to be recorded,
under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. and in further
proceeding, under Section 245 of Cr.P.C.
At this juncture, there appears to be
sufficient evidence on record.

18. In view of what has been
discussed, hereinabove, this Application,
being devoid of merit, deserves to be
dismissed
and
it
stands
dismissed
accordingly.

19. However, the Magistrate, will
consider factual aspects argued and
presented before him, at the time of
hearing of Application, moved, under
Section 245 of Cr.P.C.
----------

(2020)1ILR 1692

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 44730 of 2019

Ramesh Kumar Patel ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Archana Hans

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

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482 - Discharge application rejectedComplaint- contention of complainant
was reiterated in the statement u/s 200
1694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Cr.P.C. corroborated by statement
recorded u/s 202 of Cr.P.C.- No ground
for setting aside impugned summoning
order or proceeding of criminal casePrevious application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.
relief for quashing summoning order
rejected by a Coordinate Bench-Order
issuing Non-Bailable Warrant is a process
of the court and it has been issued only in
the absence of accused applicant-High
Court, in exercise of inherent power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 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 7 & 8)

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

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

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. Supplementary affidavit, filed
today, by the learned counsel for applicant,
is taken on record.

2. This Application, under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
has been filed by the Applicant, Ramesh
Kumar Patel, with a prayer for setting
aside summoning order, dated 4.4.2014,
passed by Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, court no. 6, Varanasi, in
Complaint
Case
No.3497
of
2012,
Upendra Nath Shukla vs. Kanhaiya &
others, under Sections-323, 363, 364-A,
384, 386, 387 and 388 of IPC, Police
Station-Shivpur, District Varanasi, as well
as, impugned order of issuing NonBailable Warrant, dated 13.3.2019.and,
thereby, entire criminal proceeding.

3. Learned counsel for applicants
argued that the accused-applicant is a
witness of a deed for execution of a
notarised agreement to sale, with which,
applicant has no concern. One of the
accused, Anurag Kumar, has, earlier, filed
a proceeding, under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., being Application U/S 482
No.47441 of 2014, Anurag Kumar vs.
State of U.P. and another, wherein, this
Court
has
passed
the
order,
dated
19.11.2014, staying further proceeding of
above complaint case, with a direction for
disposal of discharge application, moved
before the Magistrate. While rejecting
above discharge application, straightaway,
Non-Bailable Warrant was issued and only
thereafter, applicant came to know about
the impugned summoning order. Hence, it
was misuse of process of law and as such
this Application with above prayer.

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

5. From perusal of the impugned
order, it is apparent that a complaint was
filed
wherein
the
Magistrate
took
cognizance, thenafter, he decided to treat it
as a complaint case and examined
complainant, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.,
and statements of his two witnesses, Uday
Nath Shukla, as PW-1 and Ram Sharan
1 All. Ramesh Kumar Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1695
Upadhyay, as PW-2, under Section 202 of
Cr.P.C.
Besides
this,
there
were
documentary evidences, too, and on the
basis of it, impugned summoning order
was passed against Kanhaiya Lal Maurya,
Mrityunjay Maurya, Ramesh Kumar @
Puddan and Anurag Kumar, for offences,
punishable, under Sections 386, 387, 388,
323, read with Section 34 of IPC. Against
this order, a proceeding, under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., was initiated, wherein, order,
as
referred
to
above,
was
passed.
Thenafter, while disposing of discharge
application, the same was rejected.

6. Contention of complainant was
that a notarial agreement to sale was
executed regarding sale of agricultural
land,
wherein,
money
was
paid.
Subsequently,
this
could
not
be
materialised. Hence, again payment was
made back. Thenafter, entire payment of
advance paid back, as was written in
complaint, even then, a conspiracy was
hatched and in connivance of Sub
Inspector
Anurag
Kumar,
Incharge
Harhua, Police Outpost, complainant was
taken to the said Police outpost, where, he
was compelled to make payment of
Rs.3,95,0000/- to Kanhaiya Lal Maurya,
otherwise, be ready either for dying or for
false implication in many other criminal
cases as well and even to face encounter.
All this was done, under assistance and in
connivance of Sub Inspector, Anurag
Kumar, as a result of which, a cheque in
the name of Kanhaiya Lal Maurya for an
amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and a cheque of
Rs.45,000/-, in the name of Mrityunjaya
Maurya was got issued, whereas, no such
liability
was
there.
Thereafter,
this
complaint was filed.

7. This contention of complainant
was reiterated in the statement, under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C., which stood
corroborated, by the statement, recorded,
under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., hence, there
is no ground for setting aside impugned
summoning order or proceeding of above
criminal case. More so, in previously
instituted proceeding, under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., above relief was rejected by the
Coordinate
Bench,
hence,
above
summoning order was not set aside. So far
as order, issuing Non-Bailable Warrant, is
concerned, it is a process of the court and
it has been issued only in the absence of
accused
applicant,
who
had
been
summoned for such heinous offence.

8. Hence, under all above facts and
circumstances, this Court, in exercise of
inherent power, under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., 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.

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
1696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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".

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

12. In view of what has been
discussed above, this Application, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., merits dismissal
and it stands dismissed accordingly.

13. 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.

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

15. 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 1695

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 45214 of 2019