# Smt. Indresh & Anr v. State of U.P.& Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 176
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-21
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr. P.C.) No. 28860 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-indresh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44927
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 482 & Indian
Penal Code,1860- Sections 323, 504,
420,
506-challenge
to
-summoning
4 All. Smt. Indresh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
177
order- in exercise of inherent power,
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not
expected to make meticulous analysis of
evidence, because the same is course of
trial. (Para 6)

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. 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. (Para 7)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or authorise the Court taking cognizance
to direct the police to investigate into the
complaint".

27. While in the instant case in
the complaint above-mentioned all the
five ingredients are pleaded regarding
applicant No.2 company and name of the
applicant
No.2
company
is
also
mentioned as discussed above.

31. So, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case the application
filled by the applicants for taking cognizance
against applicant No.2 company comes under
the purview of Section 190 (1)(a) of the
Cr.P.C. and not under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
Because
the
name
of
the
applicant
No.2/company as an accused and the basis of
its accusation were already mentioned in the
complaint at the time of its filling. It is the fault
of the trial Court which only took cognizance
against the Director and did not take
cognizance against the company, which can
be cured by the trial Court at any time. There
is no bar under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. that
once the process is issued against some
accused, on the next date, the Magistrate
cannot issue process to some other person
against whom there is some material on
record."

27. Though in Usher Agro Ltd.'s
case (supra) matter related to Section 138
of NI Act, in which the question involved
was whether prosecution of the Director
of the company could be done without
impleadment of the company of which he
was Director, which had issued the
cheque which got dishonoured and
whether during course of the proceedings
company could be impleaded either under
the provisions of Section 190 (1) (a) or
under 319 Cr. P.C. and it was held in
Para 44. as below:

"44. So, in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case the
application filled by the applicants for taking
cognizance against applicant No.2 company
comes under the purview of Section 190 (1)(a)
Cr.P.C. because the name of the applicant
No.2/company as an accused and the basis of
its accusation were already mentioned in the
complaint at the time of its filling. It is the fault
of the trial Court which summoned the
Director alone and left the company. Such
defect is not an incurable defect and can be
cured by the trial Court at any time. There is
no bar under Section 190 Cr.P.C. that once
the process is issued against some accused, on
the next date, the Magistrate cannot issue
process to some other person against whom
there is some material on record."

28. In view of above this court is of
the view that the impugned order does not
suffer from any infirmity and this
application deserves to be dismissed, and
is accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A176

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Crl. Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr. P.C.) No.
28860 of 2019

Smt. Indresh & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P.& Anr. Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Krishna Dutt Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 482 & Indian
Penal Code,1860- Sections 323, 504,
420,
506-challenge
to
-summoning
4 All. Smt. Indresh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
177
order- in exercise of inherent power,
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not
expected to make meticulous analysis of
evidence, because the same is course of
trial. (Para 6)

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. 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. (Para 7)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited: -

1. St. of A.P. Vs Gour Sheety Mahesh J.T.
2010 (6) SCC 588

2. Hamida Vs Rashid (2008) 1 SCC 474,

3. Monika Kumar Vs St. of U.P. (2008) 8 SCC 781

4. Popular Muthiah Vs State, Represented by
Inspector 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 and anr.Vs. St.of U.P. r 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
has been filed by the Applicants, Smt.
Indresh and Lekhraj, against State of U.P.
and another, with a prayer for setting
aside summoning order, dated 5.7.2019,
passed by the Court No.9 of Additional
Sessions Judge, Moradabad, alongwith
order dated 26.7.2018 of Court No.5 of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, V,
Moradabad,
with
entire
criminal
proceeding of Complaint Case No.1082 of
2012, under Sections 323, 504, 420, 506
of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Police
Station- Civil Lines, District Moradabad.

2. Learned counsel for applicants argued
that, on the basis of statements recorded,
under Sections 200 and 202 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), applicants
were summoned for offences, punishable,
under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC.
Subsequently, on the basis of same evidence,
which was recorded under Section 244 of
Cr.P.C., Magistrate opined to frame charges
for offences, punishable, under Sections 420
and 506 of IPC. This order was challenged
before the Court of Revision, wherein, Court
of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9,
Moradabad, in Criminal Revision No. 123 of
2018, Lekhraj and another vs. State of U.P.
and another, dismissed revision and, thereby,
confirmed order of the Magistrate, which was
abuse of process of law. Hence, this
proceeding, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with
above prayer.

3. Learned AGA, representing State
of U.P., has vehemently opposed this
Application.

4. Heard learned counsel for both
sides and gone through materials on
record.

5. From very perusal of materials on
record, it is apparent that an Application,
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. was filed by
Smt. Anjlina against Lekhraj and his wife,
Indresh, with this contention that accused
persons entered in a negotiation with her for
sale of a plot of area, admeasuring to 7770.11
Squire ft. of Gata No. 761, situated at
Sonapur, Milak Bhola Singh, in the year 2004,
for which documents of ownership were
shown and Lekhraj said himself to be power
of attorney-holder of recorded owner Dharam
Singh and is competent to sell it. Complainant
entered into sale, which was executed on
17.5.2004,
by
Lekhraj,
in
favour
of
complainant, for a sale consideration of
Rs.71,000/-.
subsequently,
another
plot,
admeasuing 25 Squire Yard, adjacent to above
plot, was also agreed to be sold to the
complainant, by way of registered agreement
to sale, for a consideration of Rs.45,000/-.
Lateron, it was found that above land was
acquired land of Moradabad Development
Authority and accused persons were not
competent to make sale of the same. On
enquiry being made by the complainant, they
abused and did assault, with extending threat
of dire consequences. Hence, this Application,
with a prayer for direction for registration of
case crime number for investigation of the
same. This was treated to be a complaint case
by the Magistrate, wherein, complainant was
examined, under Section 200 and her one
witness, Charan Singh was examined, under
Section 202 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, the
Magistrate, vide order, dated 19.3.2013,
summoned Lekhraj and his wife for offences,
punishable, under Sections 323 and 504 of
Cr.P.C. After it, prosecution witness was
examined, under Section 244 of Cr.P.C.,
thenafter, under Section 245 of Cr.P.C., the
Magistrate opined for framing of charge for
additional Sections of 420 and 506 of IPC
also. This order was challenged in Criminal
Revsion, Under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.,
wherein, learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.9, Moradabad, passed impugned
judgment,
dated
5.7.2019,
dismissing
Criminal
Revision.
Hence
allegations,
levelled, in complaint, since beginning, were
having ingredients for offences, under
Sections 323, 504, 420 and 506 of IPC,
though summoning was made for offence,
under Section 323 and 504 of IPC, but at the
time of framing of charge, when appreciation
of evidence was made, then the Magistrate
found ground for levelling of additional
sections of 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code,
which were added by the Magistrate and this
order, after having been challenged, in
revision, stood confirmed. Hence, there was
sufficient ground for adding of these offences.

6. This Court, in exercise of inherent
power, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is
not expected to make meticulous analysis
of evidence, because the same is course of
trial, but, apparently, there is no misuse of
process of law, or, any requirement for
grant of any indulgence by this Court.

7. 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
4 All. Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
179
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".

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. In view of what has been
discussed above, this Application, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being devoid of
merits, dismissed.

11. 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.

12. For a period of 30 days from today,
no coercive action shall be taken against the
applicants. However, in case, the applicants
do not appear before the Court below within
the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be
taken against them.
----------

(2019)12 ILR A179

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J

Crl. Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr. P.C.) No.
28862 of 2014

Vijay Kumar Chaturvedi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.& Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant: