# Sanjay Verma v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1664
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-20
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 27051 of 2016
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-verma-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45035
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 -
This Court is not to give any opinion about
facts of the case or any proceeding regarding
it-Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet and Magistrate applied its legal mind
and thereby, took cognizance over this
offence under Section 354 of IPC, which was
substantiated by facts on record-This Court in
exercise of inherent power under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. is never expected to make
meticulous analysis of facts and evidence for
filing of charge-sheet or not-Charge-sheet
has been filed on the basis of evidence
collected by Investigating Officer-No misuse
of
process
of
law-
This
appeal
(sic
application) merits its dismissal-Criminal
application dismissed-Applicant directed to
surrender before the court below, within 30
days and apply for bail.

Application
u/s
482
Cr.P.C
finally
disposed of. (E-3)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. Sartaj Vs. State of U.P.
1665
(2020)1ILR 1664

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 27051 of 2016

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

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Sri Shashi
Bhushan Kunwar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, Sri V.K. Baranwal

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 -
This Court is not to give any opinion about
facts of the case or any proceeding regarding
it-Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet and Magistrate applied its legal mind
and thereby, took cognizance over this
offence under Section 354 of IPC, which was
substantiated by facts on record-This Court in
exercise of inherent power under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. is never expected to make
meticulous analysis of facts and evidence for
filing of charge-sheet or not-Charge-sheet
has been filed on the basis of evidence
collected by Investigating Officer-No misuse
of
process
of
law-
This
appeal
(sic
application) merits its dismissal-Criminal
application dismissed-Applicant directed to
surrender before the court below, within 30
days and apply for bail.

Application
u/s
482
Cr.P.C
finally
disposed of. (E-3)

List of cases cited: -

1. St. of A. P. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6)
SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767

2. Hamida v. 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 494

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

7. Amrawati & anr. Vs. St. of U.P. ,2004 (57)
ALR 290

8. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. St. of U.P.
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J.)

1. This application under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. has been filed by Sanjay Verma
against State of U.P. and another, with a
prayer for setting aside impugned chargesheet and cognizance taking order dated
31.5.2016, in Criminal Case No. 889 of
2016, State Vs. Sanjay Verma, under
Sections 354 of I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali,
District Ballia, pending before Court of
A.C.J.M. Ist, Ballia.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned A.G.A. representing
the State.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
argued that opposite party No. 2 Rekha
Verma, who is informant-complainant of
present case, lodged under Section 354 of
IPC, is an accused in a case of murder of
Omji Verma, which was manipulated by
her to be shown as a railway accident
death whereas FIR was got lodged and
matter was investigated wherein, final
report was submitted, against which
protest petition was filed and order for
1666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
further investigation was prayed. This is a
false case lodged as counter blast for
alleged occurrence after a delay. This
offence under Section 354 of IPC as Case
Crime No. 567 of 2016, was got
registered, upon an application moved
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., wherein,
investigation resulted in submission of
charge-sheet No. 71 of 2016 dated
3.4.2016. Cognizance by Magistrate was
taken on 31.5.2016. Occurrence was said
to be of 3.11.2015 and case was registered
on 15.3.2016. In between, above case of
murder was got registered, wherein, she
has moved an application regarding no
enmity with anyone and it being death
under railway accident. This was an
offence of murder. Hence, this counter
blast case was a result of concoction. But,
trial Court failed to appreciate it, hence,
this application for preventing abuse of
process of law. Thereby, prayer for setting
aside
impugned
charge-sheet
and
cognizance taking order with entire
proceeding of above criminal case was
prayed for.

4. Learned counsel for other side
vehemently opposed with this contention
that complainant is widow lady of 25
years, with no issue. Accused applicant is
real brother of her husband. With a view to
oust her from her property, this false case
was got registered because death was
owing
to
railway
accident
and
investigation resulted in submission of
final report. This case was reported by
G.R.P. too, that it was a case of accident.
In the present case, he was subjected to
molestation in her room, wherein, accused
was residing being elder brother of her
deceased husband. For this, she ran from
pillar to post for getting cae registered and
ultimately, this could be registered and
investigated, wherein, charge-sheet has
been submitted and cognizance has been
taken. Hence, this application.

5. Having heard learned counsels for
both sides as well as learned AGA and
gone thourgh the material placed on
record, it is apparent that a case under
Section 302 of IPC was got registered by
way of application moved under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. for murder of Omji
Verma but it resulted in submission of
final report and in police record too, it was
a case of railway accident. Moreso, this
Court is not to give any opinion about
facts of above case or any proceeding
regarding it but so far as present case is
concerned and there is accusation of
molestation
by
complainant-informant
against accused-applicant, who is real
brother of her deceased husband and it has
been substantiated by her in her statement
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.c.
Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet and Magistrate applied its legal mind
and thereby, took cognizance over this
offence under Section 354 of IPC, which
was substantiated by facts on record.

6. This Court in exercise of inherent
power under Section 482 of cr.P.C., is
never
expected
to
make
meticulous
analysis of facts and evidence for filing of
charge-sheet or not, charge-sheet has been
filed on the basis of evidence collected by
Investigating Officer. There seems no
misuse of process of law as propounded by
Apex Court:-

"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
1 All. Sanjay Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1667
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 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. This appeal
merits its dismissal.

8. Dismissed, accordingly.

9. Interim order, if any, got vacated.

10. However, in view of the entirety
of facts and circumstances of the case, it is
directed that in case the applicant appears
and surrenders before the court below
within 30 days and no more from today
and applies for bail, his prayer for bail
1668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. Till then no coercive measure shall
be taken against the applicant.

11. With the aforesaid directions, this
application is finally disposed of.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1667

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2018

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 29654 of 2018

Nandini Jadaun & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Sri Harsh
Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure - Section 164 - Application
filed by the applicant no. 1 to record her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
rejected- As a rule, statement under
section 164 Cr.P.C. may be recorded only
of
a
person
sponsored
by
the
investigating agency-Only exception is
the confessional statement of an accused
person
under
investigation-Before
recording which the Magistrate may first
call for a police report and also seek
identification of such a person -No right
can be claimed by the applicant no. 1 to
get her statement recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. as admittedly, she had not
been sponsored by the investigating
agency. Also, from the perusal of the
affidavit of the mother of the applicant
no. 1, it appears that that the application
was filed only to dilute the statement of
the applicant no. 1, as recorded under
section 161 Cr.P.C.

Application u/s 482 Cr.Pc rejected. (E-3)

List of cases cited: -

1. Reshma Khan Vs. St. of Jharkhand , Crl. Rev.
No. 999 of 2014 decided on 20.01.2015

2. Jogendra Nahak & Ors. Vs. St. of Orissa &
Ors, 2000 (1) SCC 272

3. Nafeesa Vs. St. of U.P. and Ors, 2015 (5)
ADJ 648

4. Raja Ram Vs. State, AIR 1966 All 192

5. Mahabir Singh Vs. St. of Har. ,2001 (7) SCC
148

6. Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. St. of Raj. 2012 (12)
SCC 406

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Harsh Sharma holding
brief of Shri. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the applicants and Sri
Ankit Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2.

The
present
482
Cr.P.C.
application has been filed to quash the
order dated 27.07.2018 passed by the
Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 5,
Aligarh by which that court has rejected
the application filed by the applicant no. 1
to record her statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. in Criminal Misc. Application No.
313 of 2018 that had been filed with