# Smt. Mamta Rani v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1701
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-11
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr. P.C. No. 45587 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-mamta-rani-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45046
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482- Sections 93, 418 and 494 IPC -
Bigamy-Accused persons got married
during pendency of suit for dissolution of
marriage ,u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, and persistence of earlier marriageComplaint
filed
-Magistrate
passed
summoning
order
after
conducting
inquiry u/s 200 / 2002 of Cr.Pc-Well
within law and passed on the basis of
evidence, collected by the Magistrate,
during enquiry- High Court, in exercise of
inherent power, under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon
of factual aspect because the same is a
question to be gone into, during course of
trial, by the Trial court. (Para 4, 5 & 7)

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

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 1701

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. 45587 of 2019

Smt. Mamta Rani ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Kuldeep Kumar

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

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482- Sections 93, 418 and 494 IPC -
Bigamy-Accused persons got married
during pendency of suit for dissolution of
marriage ,u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, and persistence of earlier marriageComplaint
filed
-Magistrate
passed
summoning
order
after
conducting
inquiry u/s 200 / 2002 of Cr.Pc-Well
within law and passed on the basis of
evidence, collected by the Magistrate,
during enquiry- High Court, in exercise of
inherent power, under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon
of factual aspect because the same is a
question to be gone into, during course of
trial, by the Trial court. (Para 4, 5 & 7)

Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C
rejected. (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
1 All. Smt. Mamta Rani Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1703
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

(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 Applicant, Smt.
Mamta Rani, with a prayer for quashing of
entire further proceeding, pursuant to
summoning order, dated 7.2.2014, passed
by the Judicial Magistrate-Ist, District
Bulandshahr, in Complaint Case No. 02 of
2014, Mukesh vs. Mamta and others,
under Section 494 of IPC, Police StationB.B. Nagar, District-Bulandshahr, as well
as order, dated 31.8.2019, passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1,
District Bulandshahr, in Criminal Revision
No.456 of 2017, Smt. Mamta Rani vs.
State of U.P. and others.

2. Learned counsel for applicants
argued that it was a false and malicious
prosecution, under misuse and misexercise of process of law. There was
admitted fact of marriage of Smt. Mamta
Rani with Mukesh, Opposite party no.2,
but this marriage was dissolved, then,
second marriage was performed by her
with Subhash Singh. No offence was ever
committed, but learned Magistrate failed
to appreciate it and the learned court of
revision, wherein, this fact was raised,
also, failed to appreciate it. Hence, this
proceeding, for avoiding abuse of process
of law and for ensuring ends of justice,
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 the
complaint, it is apparent that it was filed
by Mukesh against Smt. Mamta and his
second husband, Subhash Singh, for
offences, punishable, under Sections-93,
418 and 494 of IPC, with this contention
that Mamata Rani was married with
complainant on 11.12.1993, as per Hindu
Rituals. A suit for dissolution of marriage,
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, was filed and this was decreed on
29.3.2008, but, knowing this fact that the
said suit is pending and marriage is still in
persistence, accused persons got married
on 15.1.2008, which was an offence of
bigamy. Hence, this complaint. Magistrate,
enquired, by recording statement of
complainant, under Section 200 and his
witness, Udayvir Singh, under Section 202
of Cr.P.C., wherein, it was specifically
stated that Mamta, while, being legally
wedded wife of Mukesh, remarried with
Subhash Singh on 15.1.2008, when first
marriage was in existence, hence, on the
basis of above facts and evidence,
impugned summoning order was passed. It
was well within law and was passed on the
basis of evidence, collected by the
Magistrate, during his enquiry.

5. Argument that marriage was dissolved is not tenable because the marriage
was dis-solved, by way of a decree, which
is on record, and is being pressed by
learned
counsel
for
applicant,
on
29.3.2008, whereas, second marriage is
said to have been performed on 15.1.2008,
i.e., prior to dissolution of first marriage,
and as such, there was no mis-use of
process of law. As per admitted position,
first marriage was in existence and it was
1704 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dis-solved on 29.3.2018 and before this
dissolution, second marriage of Mamta
was performed with Subhash Singh on
15.1.20018, hence, in view of this,
impugned summoning order was rightly
passed, in accordance with provisions of
law.

6. Revisional court has rightly
dismissed revision on the ground that there
was
sufficient
ground
for
passing
impugned summoning order and as such it
does not require interference by revisional
court.

7. Hence, under all above facts and
circumstances, this Court, in exercise of
inherent power, under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon of
factual aspect because the same is a
question, to be gone into, during course of
trial, by the Trial court.

8. 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 judgment, in the case
of 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 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".

9. 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
1 All. Smt. Mamta Rani Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1705
would not embark upon an enquiry
whether the allegations in the complaint
are likely to be established by evidence or
not".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., merits dismissal
and it stands dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1704

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 57 of 2019
connected with Service Single No. 654 of 2019

Smt. Rashmi Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
A.P. Singh, Amarendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Petitioners-Health Education Officer (ClassIII-Non-Gazetted)-Challenging transfer orderwithin
district-passed
by
CMO-not
incompetent-administrative
controltransfering within district-of sub-ordinates lies
with CMO-transfer being exigency-if not
stigmatic order-not to be interfered withhence-order not arbitrary or illegal.

B. Held, the impugned order dated
18.12.2018 is neither stigmatic nor has
been passed to accommodate the private
respondent, rather, it has been passed by
the Competent Authority i.e. the Chief
Medical Officer.
Writ Petition disposed of. (E-8)

List of cases cited: -

1. Anil Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. &
others [2015 (33) LCD 694]

2. Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India [2009 (2)
SCC 592]

3. Shiv Shanker Ram vs. State of U.P. & others
[2007 (25) LCD 1241]

4. S.C. Saxena vs. Union of India and others
(2006) 9 SCC 583

5. State of Haryana and others vs. Kashmir
Singh and another (2010) 13 SCC 306

6. Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Inspector General of
Police (Establishment) & others (Service Single
No.20789 of 2018)

7. Rajendra Singh vs. State of U. P. (2009) 15
SCC 178

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.P. Singh, learned
Senior
Advocate
assisted
by
Sri
Amarendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents.

2. Since by means of the aforesaid
writ petitions the transfer order dated
18.12.2018 passed by the Chief Medical
Officer, Lucknow has been assailed
whereby both the petitioners of the
aforesaid
writ
petitions
have
been
transferred and the grounds to assail the
aforesaid impugned order are more or less
same and both the writ petitions are being
listed by connecting each other, therefore,
with the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, both the writ petitions are being
decided
by
a
common
judgment.