# Santarpal & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1695
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-11
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 45214 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santarpal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45043
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
204 - Section 482-Indian Penal CodeSection 323- Magistrate is to make
application of its judicial mind and to find
as to whether there is existence of prima
facie case for summoning of accused
persons for offences made out in it or
not-No detailed and meticulous reasoned
order is expected at this stage-Litigation
pending between the parties may be a
motive for commission of this offence or
for false implication- same is a question
of fact to be seen by Magistrate during
trial-For an offence punishable under
Section 323 I.P.C. i.e simple hurt, there
need not be a compulsory presence of
medico legal report or medical injuryPrayer
for
quashing
impugned
summoning
order
and
proceeding
refused-No coercive action for a period of
four weeks or till the disposal of the
application for grant of bail whichever is
earlier. (Para 5, 6 & 7)

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

List of cases cited: -

## Text

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
1 All. Ramesh Kumar Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1697
Santarpal & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Gaurav Singh Chauhan

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

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
204 - Section 482-Indian Penal CodeSection 323- Magistrate is to make
application of its judicial mind and to find
as to whether there is existence of prima
facie case for summoning of accused
persons for offences made out in it or
not-No detailed and meticulous reasoned
order is expected at this stage-Litigation
pending between the parties may be a
motive for commission of this offence or
for false implication- same is a question
of fact to be seen by Magistrate during
trial-For an offence punishable under
Section 323 I.P.C. i.e simple hurt, there
need not be a compulsory presence of
medico legal report or medical injuryPrayer
for
quashing
impugned
summoning
order
and
proceeding
refused-No coercive action for a period of
four weeks or till the disposal of the
application for grant of bail whichever is
earlier. (Para 5, 6 & 7)

Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C
disposed of. (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. State, 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. State of U.P., 2004 (57)
ALR 290

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

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

1. The applicants, by means of this
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court with prayer to quash the entire
proceeding
as
well
as
impugned
summoning
order
dated
19.04.2019,
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
Baghpat in Complaint Case No. 544 of
2019 (Netrapal Versus Santarpal and
others), under Sections 323, 504, 506
I.P.C., Police Station Singhawali Aheer,
District Baghpat and all the consequential
proceedings thereon.

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

3. Learned counsel for applicants
argued that Santarpal and Netrapal are real
brothers. Civil suit is pending in between.
Many cases were filed by Netrapal against
Santarpal, which ended either in form of
final report or in acquittal. The list of same
has been filed at page no. 54 of this paper
book. The present case was a malicious
prosecution in furtherance of misuse of
process of law. Hence, this application
with above prayer.

4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently
opposed the application.

5. At the stage of Section 204
Cr.P.C., for passing any summoning order,
1698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Magistrate is to make application of its
judicial mind and to find as to whether
there is existence of prima facie case for
summoning
of
accused
persons
for
offences made out in it or not. No detailed
and meticulous reasoned order is expected
at this stage. Both sides are real brothers.
They are inimical to each other. Litigation
are pending. This may be a motive for
commission of this offence or for false
implication, but in both cases, it is a
question of fact to be seen by Magistrate
during trial.

6. The complainant had reiterated the
contention of complaint in its statement
recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. that on
24.02.2019
at
about 5 P.M.
when
complainant along with his family was
working at his field Sattarpal, Rajeev and
Rajkumar,
armed
with
lathi
and
Tamancha, did assault over them and
abused. They chased complainant, who
tried to hide himself in a room of tubewell, but they did criminal tress-pass
thereat and assaulted him there too. Seema
too was assaulted by them. A threat of dire
consequences was extended. This matter
was reported at police station and
ultimately this complaint was filed. The
same contention is of Seema and other
witness
enquired
under
section 202
Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for applicants
argued that there is no medico legal report,
but for an offence punishable under
Section 323 I.P.C. i.e simple hurt, there
need not be a compulsory presence of
medico legal report because for a simple
hurt even one slap will be sufficient,
having no medical injury.

7. Moreso, 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
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
1 All. Santarpal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1699
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".

8. 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".

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

10. The prayer for quashing
summoning order as well as proceeding of
the aforesaid criminal case is refused.

11. However, in the interest of
justice, it is provided that if the applicants
appear and surrender before the court
below within four weeks from today and
apply for bail, then the bail application of
the applicants 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 judgment
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra
Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P

12. For a period of four weeks from
today or till the disposal of the application for
grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive
action shall be taken against the applicants.

13. However, in case, the applicants
do not appear before the Court below
within the aforesaid period, coercive
action shall be taken against them.

14. With the aforesaid directions, this
application is finally disposed of.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1698

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. 45474 of 2019

Sugreev Nishad & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Mahboob Ahmad, Zia Qadir

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

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482 - High Court in exercise of inherent