# Smt. Kanta Devi & Anr v. 642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 641
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-17
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 32617 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kanta-devi-anr-v-642-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-state-of-u-p-anr-44720
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
420 and Cr.P.C., 1973 - Section 482 -
Complaint Case - Dishonest deception by
accused stood established from the
evidence led before the Court below - In
exercise
of
inherent
powers
under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C, High Court would
neither appreciate the factual aspects of
the case, nor embark upon an enquiry
whether the allegations in the complaint
are likely to be established by evidence
or not. (Para 2,4,5,6,7 & 8)

On facts, it is apparent that there was
dishonest deception by the Applicants, who
had taken money in lieu of promise for making
transfer of a plot of land and there was
evidence to this effect, under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C., which stood further corroborated by
evidence, recorded, under Section 202 of
Cr.P.C., hence summoning order was passed
for offence, punishable, under above sections,
against the applicants.

In exercise of inherent power, conferred by
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., factual aspect is not to
be appreciated by this Court because of same
being question of fact. Allegations made in the
complaint are supported by evidence, recorded
in the enquiry, by the Magistrate, hence
cannot be interfered with by this Court.

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. 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. Application
dismissed.

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed (E-3)

Case law relied upon/discussed: -

## Text

2 All. Smt. Kanta Devi & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.
641
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, propounded
as above.

8. In view of what has been
discussed above, this proceeding, under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., lacks merits and
as such, this Application, under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., stands dismissed.

9. 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.

10. 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)10ILR A 641

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 32617 of 2019

Smt. Kanta Devi & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Anil Kumar Dubey, Sri Dilip Kumar
Goswami

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

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
420 and Cr.P.C., 1973 - Section 482 -
Complaint Case - Dishonest deception by
accused stood established from the
evidence led before the Court below - In
exercise
of
inherent
powers
under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C, High Court would
neither appreciate the factual aspects of
the case, nor embark upon an enquiry
whether the allegations in the complaint
are likely to be established by evidence
or not. (Para 2,4,5,6,7 & 8)

On facts, it is apparent that there was
dishonest deception by the Applicants, who
had taken money in lieu of promise for making
transfer of a plot of land and there was
evidence to this effect, under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C., which stood further corroborated by
evidence, recorded, under Section 202 of
Cr.P.C., hence summoning order was passed
for offence, punishable, under above sections,
against the applicants.

In exercise of inherent power, conferred by
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., factual aspect is not to
be appreciated by this Court because of same
being question of fact. Allegations made in the
complaint are supported by evidence, recorded
in the enquiry, by the Magistrate, hence
cannot be interfered with by this Court.

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. 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. Application
dismissed.

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed (E-3)

Case law relied upon/discussed: -

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 St. Represented by
Insp. of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296
5. Dhanlakshmi Vs R. Prasana Kumar (1990)
Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 49
6. St. of Bihar Vs Murad Ali Khan (1989) Cr LJ
1005: AIR 1989 SC 1
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants over this Application, moved
under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (In short 'Cr.P.C.), by Smt.
Kanta Devi and Dinesh Baghel, against
State
of
U.P.
and
Mitthan
Khan,
challenging summoning order, dated
13.3.2019, passed in Complaint Case No.
6901940 of 2018 (Mitthan Khan vs.
Zannat & others), under Section 420 of
Indian Penal Code (In short 'IPC'), Police
Station-Shahganj, District Agra, pending
in the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, court no.4, Agra as well as
impugned
summoning
order,
dated
13.3.2019 and other process issued
against them.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants
argued that both the applicants are having
no concern nor there was any evidence for
their summoning for offence, punishable,
2 All. Smt. Kanta Devi & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.
643
under Section 420 of IPC, whereas vide
impugned order, dated 13.3.2019, they
have been summoned, but no summoning
is there for those other accused persons,
who were also made party in complaint,
filed by the complainant, Opposite party
no.2. Hence, this was abuse of process of
court and as such this Application, with a
prayer
for
quashing
of
impugned
summoning order and entire proceeding
of above case.

3. Learned AGA, representing State
of U.P., has vehemently opposed this
Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

4. Having heard learned counsel for
both sides and gone through the summoning
order as well as the complaint, filed before the
Magistrate, it is apparent that the complaint
was filed by Mitthan Khan against Zannat and
five others for offence, punishable, under
Sections 147, 148, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323,
504, 506 and 120B of IPC, Police StationShahganj, District Agra, by way of an
application, moved, under Section 156 (3) of
Cr.P.C., which was treated to be a complaint,
wherein contention was that Mitthan Khan
entered in an agreement for purchase of a plot
of 40 sq. yard of Khasra No. 59, Mauja
Dauretha, Tehsil & District Agra, through a
dealer, Mukesh Kumar with Dinesh Baghal,
applicant no.2 herein, and in lieu of above,
amount of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.30,000/- were
paid to Dinesh Baghel and his wife, Kanta
Devi, applicant no.1 herein. Subsequently,
Rs.1,45,000/- was also paid in cash to them,
but they did not execute sale deed, rather
disclosed the property to be owned by Zannat.
Ultimately, by making additional payment,
through Bank Cheque, above property was
got purchased, by way of registered sale deed
from Zannat on 23.6.2017. Lateron, it was
came to notice that Kanta Devi had executed
sale deed in favour of Bhuri Begum,
fraudulently, for the same plot, prior to
execution of sale deed by Zannat. Hence, it
was a dishonest deception by Dinesh Baghel
and Kanta Devi, who had taken money in lieu
of promise for making transfer of above plot
and there was evidence to this effect, under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C., which stood further
corroborated by evidence, recorded, under
Section 202 of Cr.P.C., that is why
summoning order was passed for offence,
punishable, under above sections, against the
applicants.

5. In exercise of inherent power,
conferred by Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
factual aspect is not to be appreciated by
this Court because of same being question
of fact. Allegations made in the complaint
are supported by evidence, recorded in the
enquiry, by the Magistrate, hence cannot
be interfered with by this Court.

6. 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.

7. 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
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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".

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

9. In view of what has been
discussed above, this Application, being
devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 644

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.10.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR
SRIVASTAV, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 7313 of 2019

Smt. Malti Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Jai Narayan Singh, Lav Singh, Vishal
Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.