# Saleem Khan & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 680
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-12
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 44383 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/saleem-khan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45265
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Code of Criminal Procedure-Section
482-Previous litigation, in between the
parties, may be a malice for filing
criminal complaint or may be a cause for
occurrence, but all these are questions of
fact to be seen by the Trial court, during
course of trial, and this Court, in exercise
of inherent power, under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon
such
factual
aspects-Impugned
summoning order passed on the basis of
evidence collected by the Magistrate,
during
his
enquiry
requires
no
interference. (Para 4 & 5)

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

List of cases cited: -

## Text

680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

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

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.

11. 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 680

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 44383 of 2019

Saleem Khan & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Zafar Abbas, Sri Faheem Ahmad

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

A. Code of Criminal Procedure-Section
482-Previous litigation, in between the
parties, may be a malice for filing
criminal complaint or may be a cause for
occurrence, but all these are questions of
fact to be seen by the Trial court, during
course of trial, and this Court, in exercise
of inherent power, under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon
such
factual
aspects-Impugned
summoning order passed on the basis of
evidence collected by the Magistrate,
during
his
enquiry
requires
no
interference. (Para 4 & 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. 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
1 All. Saleem Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
681
(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,Saleem
Khan, Alim Khan, Rizvan Khan, Kamer
Khan and Mazhar Alam, with a prayer for
quashing of the complaint and the
impugned
summoning
order,
dated
4.9.2019, passed by Civil Judge (Junior
Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Hasanpur,
District Amroha, in Complaint Case No.
456 of 2019, under Sections-354A, 323
and 506 of IPC, Police Station-Hasanpur,
Distric-Amroha.

2. Learned counsel for applicants
argued that the applicants had given their
house for residence, for a limited period to
Saira, present complainant, who did not
vacate it, rather, a civil suit was filed by
her, which is pending. Thenafter, a NonCognizable
report
was
got
lodged,
wherein, proceeding was subsequently
stayed by this Court, in a proceeding,
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter,
this false complaint, with false accusation,
has been got filed, wherein, impugned
summoning order has been passed, but, no
such occurrence ever occurred and it was
misuse of process of law. Hence, for
avoiding abuse of process of law and for
securing ends of justice, 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.

4. Previous litigation, in between the
parties, may be a malice for filing present
criminal complaint or may be a cause for
occurrence, but all these are questions of
fact to be seen by the Trial court, during
course of trial, and this Court, in exercise
of inherent power, under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon
such factual aspects.

5. From very perusal of the
complaint, it is apparent that occurrence,
dated 3.5.2019, at about 6.00 PM, has been
said by the complainant in her statement,
recorded, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.,
which was in reiteration of contention of
complainant. Same has been said by the
witnesses, Hasin Khan and Taira, who
were examined, under Section 202 of
Cr.P.C., in the enquiry made by the
Magistrate. It has been said that on 3rd
May, 2019, at about 6.00 PM, when the
complainant was present at her residence,
accused persons, Salim Khan, Alim Khan,
Rizwan Khan, Kamar Khan and Mazhar
Alam, came in her house and as there was
a previous litigation, in between them,
they asked to enter into a compromise,
which was not conceded by her. Then,
they
did
assault
upon her.
Hence,
impugned summoning order is there, on
the basis of evidence, collected by the
Magistrate,
during
his
enquiry.
Accordingly, this Application lacks merits
and is liable to be dismissed.

6. 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
682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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".

7. 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".

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

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

10. 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.

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

12. In case, if the applicants do not
appear before the Court below within the
aforesaid period, coercive action shall be
taken against them.
----------
1 All. Smt. Neha Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
683
(2020)1ILR 683

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 45053 of 2019

Smt. Neha Gupta ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Santosh Kumar Giri

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

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482-Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
not to be exercised in a routine manner,
but it is for limited purposes, namely, to
give effect to any order under the Code,
or to prevent abuse of process of any
Court or otherwise to secure ends of
justice-From perusal of allegations made
in the FIR, statement of witnesses during
investigation, charge sheet submitted by
Investigating Officer, it cannot be said
that no offence is made out against the
accused-applicant and charge sheet has
been
wrongly
submitted-Disputed
question of fact, cannot be adjudicated
upon by this Court in exercise of power
conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

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

List of cases cited: -

1. St. of Har. & ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors.
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

2. Popular Muthiah Vs. State rep. by Insp. of
Police (2006) 7 SCC 296

3. Hamida Vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors.
(2008) 1 SCC 474
4. Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr. Vs. St. of U.P. &
Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 781

5. M.N. Ojha & Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav &
Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 682

6. St. of A.P. vs. Gourishetty Mahesh & Ors. JT
2010 (6) SC 588

7. Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Inc.
& Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 74

8. St. of Kar. Vs. L. Muniswamy & ors. 1977 (2)
SCC 699

9. Priya Vrat Singh & ors. Vs. Shyam Ji Sahai,
2008 (8) SCC 232

10. Fakhruddin Ahmad v. St. of Uttaranchal
(2008) 1 SCC 157

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajendra KumarIV, J.)

1. By means of this application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant Smt. Neha
Gupta approached this Court for quashing
the Charge Sheet No.564 of 2018, dated
22.12.2018 submitted in Case Crime
No.744 of 2018 (Session Trial No.51 of
2019) under Sections 302, 323 and 504
IPC, Police Station Shahabad, Distirct
Rampur and entire proceedings thereof.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the
present application are that Informant
Abhinav Gupta submitted an application in
Police Station Shahabad, Distirct Rampur
stating that he was married to Neha Gupta
one and half years back. After some days
relation between husband and wife became
strained due to rude behaviour of his wife.
Often she used to abuse his mother and
after one and half years about she left his
house and started living in her maternal
house and so many false complaints have
been lodged by her against him and his
mother. On 26.10.2018 at about 02:00 PM