# Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 11 ILRA 42
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-03-04
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 8781 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-kumar-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45416
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 82 - Section 83- Section 482-
Non
Bailable
Warrant,
coupled
with
proclamation, under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.,
followed by attachment, under Section 83 of
Cr.P.C., is being said to be issued against
applicant- Application for grant of anticipatory
bail was rejected- By means of present
proceeding, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
prayer for a direction that the applicant be not
arrested, in execution of those processes.
Meaning thereby, same relief, which was
claimed by way of above Criminal Misc. Bail
Application, has been again prayed for by
circumventing
proceedings,
in
present
proceeding, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Once a relief has been refused by the Court in earlier
proceedings, then the same issue cannot be reagitated through a subsequent Criminal Application
as the same would amount to circumventing the law
and misuse of the process of the Court.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section
482- This Court may not give any opinion
about fact or involvement of accusedapplicant- Exercise of inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the
limits, propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.

It is settled law that in the exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction the Court cannot conduct a factual
analysis as the same being a question of evidence
can only be considered by the trial court.

Criminal Application accordingly rejected. (Para
4, 5, 7) (E-3)

Case law/ Judgements relied upon:-

## Text

42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
annexed as annexures to the petition thus, it
is hereby directed that the applicants would
submit all these documents/prescriptions
before the court concern and any other
document relating to her ailments i.e.
deceased was suffering from hyper tension
and the court concern shall direct the
investigator to conduct further investigation
about the authenticity of those medical
prescriptions as well as record 161
statement of the concern doctor who
conduct the post mortem within a period of
six weeks from the date of filing of this
order before the Trial Court. Thereafter, the
court again would decide the discharge
application taking into account the holistic
and peneromic view of all the material on
record and decide the same with good
reasons by 31.12.2020 positively. There
shall not be any laxity on the part of the
trial court in deciding the discharge
application by that date.

[31] With the aforesaid observations,
the present 482 Cr.P.C application stands
allowed and the order impugned dated
31.01.2020 is hereby quashed.
----------
(2020)11ILR A42
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 8781 of 2020

Sanjay Kumar Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, Sri Indra Sen Singh

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

Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 82 - Section 83- Section 482-
Non
Bailable
Warrant,
coupled
with
proclamation, under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.,
followed by attachment, under Section 83 of
Cr.P.C., is being said to be issued against
applicant- Application for grant of anticipatory
bail was rejected- By means of present
proceeding, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
prayer for a direction that the applicant be not
arrested, in execution of those processes.
Meaning thereby, same relief, which was
claimed by way of above Criminal Misc. Bail
Application, has been again prayed for by
circumventing
proceedings,
in
present
proceeding, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Once a relief has been refused by the Court in earlier
proceedings, then the same issue cannot be reagitated through a subsequent Criminal Application
as the same would amount to circumventing the law
and misuse of the process of the Court.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section
482- This Court may not give any opinion
about fact or involvement of accusedapplicant- Exercise of inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the
limits, propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.

It is settled law that in the exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction the Court cannot conduct a factual
analysis as the same being a question of evidence
can only be considered by the trial court.

Criminal Application accordingly rejected. (Para
4, 5, 7) (E-3)

Case law/ Judgements relied upon:-

1. Lavesh Vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730

2. Dhanlakshmi Vs R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr LJ
320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494

3. St. of Bih. Vs Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ
1005: AIR 1989 SC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.)
11 All. Sanjay Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
43

1. This Application, under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
has been filed by the Applicant, Sanjay
Kumar Yadav, with a prayer for restraining
Station Officer, Police Station-Baharia,
District-Allahabad,
from
arresting
applicant, in execution of warrant of court
or otherwise and from executing the
process, under Sections 82 and 83 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against
applicant, in Case Crime No.45 of 2019,
under Sections 147, 149, 201, 34, 498A,
306 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, Police
Station-Baharia, District-Allahabad.

2. Learned counsel for applicant
argued that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in Case Crime No.45 of 2019,
under Sections 147, 149, 201, 34, 498A,
306 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, Police
Station-Baharia,
District-Allahabad.
Applicant, being elder brother of husband
of the deceased, was having separate living
and was having no concern with the alleged
demand of dowry and cruelty, with regard
to it or committing of suicide by the
deceased. Chargesheet has been filed
against rest of the accused persons and
investigation against applicant is said to be
pending, wherein, proclamation, under
Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C., is being said
to be issued. An application, for grant of
anticipatory bail, being Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.58000 of 2019, Sanjay
Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P., has been
rejected by this Court. He applied for
having copy of the order of warrant, issued
against
him,
alongwith
order
of
proclamation and attachment, being said to
be issued, under Sections 82 and 83 of
Cr.P.C., but, he could not have copies of
those orders. Statements of two daughters
of the deceased is there in the case diary,
wherein, they have specifically said that
Sanjay Kumar Yadav, present applicant
herein, was having a separate living, by
constructing
house
of
his
own.
Chargesheet, against applicant, can be filed
if his involvement is there and thereafter
the same can be challenged before the
appropriate court, but, the Investigating
Officer is adamant to arrest applicant.
Hence, this all was under abuse of process
of law Therefore, for avoiding abuse of
process of law, 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. From very perusal of Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.58000 of 2019
and the order passed over it, annexed
herewith at page 70 of the Paper Book, it is
apparent that Non Bailable Warrants have
been issued against the applicants and his
application for grant of anticipatory bail
was
rejected,
meaning
thereby,
Non
Bailable
Warrant,
coupled
with
proclamation, under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.,
followed by attachment, under Section 83
of Cr.P.C., is being said to be issued against
applicant, in Case Crime No.45 of 2019,
and applicant, by means of present
proceeding, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
has prayed for a direction that the applicant
be not arrested, in execution of those
processes. Meaning thereby, same relief,
which was claimed by way of above
Criminal Misc. Bail Application, has been
again
prayed
for
by
circumventing
proceedings, in present proceeding, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C..

5. This Court may not give any
opinion about fact or involvement of
accused-applicant in above case crime
number, but, under all above facts and
44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumstances and looking to the verdict of
the Apex Court in the case of Lavesh vs
State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012)
8 SCC 730, this Court finds no ground for
any indulgence to be granted to the
applicant.

6. 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".

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 Application, under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., merits dismissal and it stands
dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2020)11ILR A44
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 8803 of 2020

Vinod Rawat ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ram Krishna Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 227- Section
228-
Rejection
of
application
for
discharge- At the stage of framing of
charge, all that is required is to see
whether a prima face case has been made
out. The question whether the charge
framed will eventually stand proved or not
can be determined only after evidence is
recorded. Pre trial acquittal, at the stage
of charge framing, is not permissible. Even
on the basis of strong suspicion, charge
can be framed.

At the stage of framing of Charge it has to be
seen only whether a prima facie case is made
out or not and even on the basis of strong
suspicion the court can frame the Charge.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section
482-
Cognizance
-
Challenged
in
a
previously instituted proceeding wherein,
it was held by this Court itself that it
cannot be said that there is no ground for
making out offence against applicant
herein. Hence, impugned order was well
within provisions of law, which does not
call for any interference by this Court, in
exercise of jurisdiction, conferred by
Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Criminal proceedings having been already
challenged through a prior criminal Application
and the same having been rejected, the Court in
the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction may not
reconsider the same proceedings in a
subsequent application.

Criminal Application rejected. (Para 6, 7, 8 ) (E-3)