# Sangram Singh v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 182
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-22
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 5511 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sangram-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53618
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Whether the application under Section 482
Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S., 2023 for quashing the
proceedings in Criminal Case No.1172/2018 is
maintainable when an alternative remedy of
revision is available under the Code of Criminal
Procedure.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section - 482, - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, -
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Section - 528 - Application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing discharge order -
criminal proceeding - summoning order -
discharge application - impugned order -
application against discharge order - strong
preliminary
objection raised
by the AGA
regarding aavailability of a statutory remedy like
revision - citing Supreme Court judgments
including Vipin Sahni v. CBI and Mohit alias
Sonu v. State of U.P., court held that when a
statutory remedy like revision is available, the
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
should not be invoked except in compelling
circumstances - hence, the applicant should
approached the revisional court by filing revision
- application disposed of, with direction to the
revisional court, the delay in filing revision may
be condoned, to decide the matter expeditiously
and no coercive action to be taken against the
92-year-old applicant if revision is filed within
ten days. (Para - 6, 7, 8)
Application Disposed of. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Vipin Sahni & Another Vs. CBI (2024 (2) ACR
952 (SC) - Mohit alias Sonu v. State of U.P.
(2013) 7 SCC 789) - Prabhu Chawla v. State of
Rajasthan(MANU/SC/0979/2016)
-
Madhu
Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC
551) - Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10
SCC 733).
LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) -
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(B.N.S.S.) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. - Inherent
jurisdiction -- Discharge order - Revision - Nonbailable warrant - Condonation of delay -
7 All. Sangram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
183
Judicial discretion - Alternative remedy -
Expeditious disposal.

CASE ARISING FROM
Criminal Case No. 1172/2018 - (Jasbeer Singh
vs. Sardar Jasvender Singh and others) - under
section - 406 IPC - Police Station - Alambagh,
District - Lucknow.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant: - Sri Azhar Ikram and Sri
Aseem Goswami
Counsel for Respondent: - Sri Nikhil Singh -
AGA-1, Sri Jasveer Singh Bakshi, Sri Anil K.
Tripathi.

## Text

182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was not given to her and it was sold away
to some other person and thereafter it was
again sold to yet another person. In spite of
the informant having approached the
RERA and obtained an order in her
favaour, her money has not been paid to
her. The informant has alleged that similar
misdeeds have been committed against
numerous other flat-buyers and the learned
counsel for the applicant is not in a position
to dispute this assertion.

15. The aforesaid facts, besides prima
facie making out commission of cognizable
offences by the accused persons, do not in
any manner make out that continuance of
criminal proceedings against the applicant
would defeat the ends of justice and,
therefore, these facts do not warrant
exercise of this Court's inherent power to
quash the criminal proceedings against the
applicant.

16.
In
view
of
the
foregoing
discussions, the application is dismissed.
---------
(2025) 7 ILRA 182
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5511 of 2024

Sangram Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Aseem Goswami, Azhar Ikram

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the application under Section 482
Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S., 2023 for quashing the
proceedings in Criminal Case No.1172/2018 is
maintainable when an alternative remedy of
revision is available under the Code of Criminal
Procedure.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section - 482, - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, -
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Section - 528 - Application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing discharge order -
criminal proceeding - summoning order -
discharge application - impugned order -
application against discharge order - strong
preliminary
objection raised
by the AGA
regarding aavailability of a statutory remedy like
revision - citing Supreme Court judgments
including Vipin Sahni v. CBI and Mohit alias
Sonu v. State of U.P., court held that when a
statutory remedy like revision is available, the
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
should not be invoked except in compelling
circumstances - hence, the applicant should
approached the revisional court by filing revision
- application disposed of, with direction to the
revisional court, the delay in filing revision may
be condoned, to decide the matter expeditiously
and no coercive action to be taken against the
92-year-old applicant if revision is filed within
ten days. (Para - 6, 7, 8)
Application Disposed of. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Vipin Sahni & Another Vs. CBI (2024 (2) ACR
952 (SC) - Mohit alias Sonu v. State of U.P.
(2013) 7 SCC 789) - Prabhu Chawla v. State of
Rajasthan(MANU/SC/0979/2016)
-
Madhu
Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC
551) - Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10
SCC 733).
LIST OF ACTS
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) -
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(B.N.S.S.) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. - Inherent
jurisdiction -- Discharge order - Revision - Nonbailable warrant - Condonation of delay -
7 All. Sangram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
183
Judicial discretion - Alternative remedy -
Expeditious disposal.

CASE ARISING FROM
Criminal Case No. 1172/2018 - (Jasbeer Singh
vs. Sardar Jasvender Singh and others) - under
section - 406 IPC - Police Station - Alambagh,
District - Lucknow.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant: - Sri Azhar Ikram and Sri
Aseem Goswami
Counsel for Respondent: - Sri Nikhil Singh -
AGA-1, Sri Jasveer Singh Bakshi, Sri Anil K.
Tripathi.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Azhar Ikram and Sri
Aseem Goswami, learned counsels for the
applicant, Sri Nikhil Singh, learned AGA,
Sri
Jasveer
Singh
Bakshi/complainant
appear in person and Sri Anil K. Tripathi,
who has filed Vakalatnama today on behalf
of complainant, same is taken on record.

2. By means of this application filed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S.,
2023, the applicant prayed that the
proceeding
of
Criminal
Case
No.1172/2018; Jasbeer Singh vs. Sardar
Jasvender Singh and others, under Section
406 I.P.C., Police Station Alambagh,
District Lucknow be set-aside/ quashed and
during the pendency of this application, the
aforesaid proceeding may be stayed.

3. Strong objection has been raised by
Sri Nikhil Singh, learned AGA placing
reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in re Vipin Sahni and another vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation 2024 (2)
ACR 952 (SC) referring paras- 15, 23, 25
& 26, whereby the Apex Court considering
various dictums of the Apex Court,
precisely held that when the specific
remedy of revision is available, it could not
have been ignored and have filed a petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. The Apex Court
in re: Mohit alias Sonu and another vs.
State of U.P. and another, (2013) 7 SCC
789, vide para- 28 has held that the inherent
power of the Court can be exercised when
there is no remedy provided in the Code of
Criminal Procedure for redressal of the
grievance. Supreme Court further held that
it is well settled that the inherent power of
the Court can ordinarily be exercised when
there is no express provision in the Code
under which order impugned can be
challenged.

4. Precisely, the view of the Hon'ble
Court in the aforesaid judgments is that if
there
is
alternative,
statutory
and
efficacious remedy available, that should
not be ignored and though the inherent
power of the High Court is unlimited, but at
the same time the Apex Court has held in
Catena of cases that the remedy under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be invoked
sparingly and with caution.

5. Replying the aforesaid contention,
learned counsel for the applicant has drawn
attention of this Court towards the dictum
of Apex Court in re: Prabhu Chawla vs.
State
of
Rajasthan
and
others;
MANU/SC/0979/2016 wherein the Apex
Court in paras- 4, 5 & 6 has observed that
though on account of revisional power
being available to the litigant, he may
approach the Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. but such power of the High Court
should be invoked sparingly. In para-5 in
re: Prabhu Chawla (Supra) referring para10 in re: Madhu Limaye vs. the State of
Maharashtra; (1977) 4 SCC 551 the Apex
Court has observed that "even so, a general
principle pervades this branch of law when
a specific provision is made: easy resort to
184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inherent power is not right except under
compelling circumstances, not that there is
absence of jurisdiction but that inherent
power should not invade areas set apart for
specific power under the same Code."

6. The perusal of both the aforesaid
judgments make it crystal clear that in a
recent judgment in re: Vipin Sahni vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation (Supra)
the Apex Court has clearly held that
ignoring the revisional jurisdiction one
should not approach the High Court under
Section 482 Cr. P. C. invoking inherent
jurisdiction. The Apex Court in catena of
cases has held that the alternative, statutory
and efficacious remedy may not be
circumvented in normal circumstances and
if there is any extreme and unavoidable
circumstances, the litigant appears to be
remedy-less, the inherent power of the
High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
always
available.
Those
extreme
circumstances are not visible in the present
case, therefore, I find that this application
challenging
the
discharge
order
and
summoning order being passed by the
learned trial court is not maintainable and
instead of approaching this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant should
approach the revisional court by filing his
revision.

7. It is needless to say that since there is
some delay in approaching the revisional
court, therefore, it is expected that the
revisional court may dispose of the revision if
filed by the revisionist, within a period of ten
days from today, on merits and the applicant
may
file
appropriate
application
for
condonation of delay. The revisional court
shall
decide
the
revision
strictly
in
accordance with law by affording an
opportunity of hearing to the parties, with
expedition preferably within a period of six
weeks from filing of such revision by fixing
short date and no unnecessary adjournment
shall be given to any of the parties.

8. Notably, the present applicant is aged
about 92 years and presently non-bailable
warrant has been issued against him,
therefore, if the aforesaid revision is filed
within time so stipulated i.e. ten days, no
coercive steps may be taken against him but
alongwith his revision application, he may
file his bail application before the competent
court of law and the same shall be disposed
of in the light of Satender Kumar Antil Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and
another; 2022 (10) SCC 733.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the present
application is finally disposed of.
---------
(2025) 7 ILRA 184
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5589 of 2025

Sandeep Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Digvijai Singh, Pradeep Rai

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Court is to determine whether trial Court acted
correctly in summoning the applicant as
additional accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C. in Session
Trial to face trail.

Head Notes