# Smt. Manisha @ Ranu v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 635
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-17
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 32602 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-manisha-ranu-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-44717
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 and Cr.P.C., 1973
- Section 482 - Complaint filed against
husband
and
other
relatives
-
Only
husband of the complainant summoned
since
specific
allegations
made
only
against him- In exercise of inherent
powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C High
Court cannot examine questions of fact.

Complainant was examined, under Sections
200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. wherein she has
specifically levelled accusations against her
husband only. No recital against in-laws
regarding demand of dowry. Even, in the
complaint, it has been written that gift was
given to her husband by complaint's parents.
Thus, on the basis of it, only husband was
summoned for above offence and this order
was confirmed in the revision as well by the
revisional Court.

This Court, in exercise of inherent power,
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to
analyze the factual aspect of the cases
because the same remains with trial court,
being questions of fact. Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
is the saving of inherent power of High Court,
with a provision 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. The orders,
impugned, do not suffer from any illegality or
irregularity or defeat ends of justice. Hence,
this proceeding, by way of Application under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., merits rejection and as
such Application stands dismissed accordingly.
636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed (E-3)

Case law relied upon/discussed: -

## Text

2 All. Smt. Manisha @ Ranu Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
635
record that the aforesaid judgement of
Hon'ble Apex Court renders no help to
the applicants and is distinguishable on
the facts of the case inasmuch as there
were material contradictions in the
statements of the witnesses recorded
during trial.

13.

It
is
well
settled
that
authority/judicial precedent has to be
understood in context of facts based on
which the observation made therein are
made. The ratio of a decision is generally
secundum subjectam materiam. In Quinn
v. Leathem (1901) AC 495, Earls of
Halsbury L.C. stated:

"...that every judgment must be read
as applicable to the particular facts
proved, or assumed to be proved, since
the generality of the expressions which
may be found there are not intended to be
expositions of the whole law, but
governed and qualified by the particular
facts
of
the
case
in
which
such
expressions are to be found."

14. In the light of aforesaid, I do not
find good ground to quash the impugned
charge-sheet
and
the
order
taking
cognizance against the applicants.

15. The application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is bereft of merit and it is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 635

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.
Application u/s 482 No. 32602 of 2019

Smt. Manisha @ Ranu ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ray Sahab Yadav

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

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 and Cr.P.C., 1973
- Section 482 - Complaint filed against
husband
and
other
relatives
-
Only
husband of the complainant summoned
since
specific
allegations
made
only
against him- In exercise of inherent
powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C High
Court cannot examine questions of fact.

Complainant was examined, under Sections
200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. wherein she has
specifically levelled accusations against her
husband only. No recital against in-laws
regarding demand of dowry. Even, in the
complaint, it has been written that gift was
given to her husband by complaint's parents.
Thus, on the basis of it, only husband was
summoned for above offence and this order
was confirmed in the revision as well by the
revisional Court.

This Court, in exercise of inherent power,
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to
analyze the factual aspect of the cases
because the same remains with trial court,
being questions of fact. Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
is the saving of inherent power of High Court,
with a provision 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. The orders,
impugned, do not suffer from any illegality or
irregularity or defeat ends of justice. Hence,
this proceeding, by way of Application under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C., merits rejection and as
such Application stands dismissed accordingly.
636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. This Application, under Section
482 of Criminal Procedure Code, has
been filed by Smt. Manisha @ Ranu,
against
State
of
U.P.
and
others,
challenging the order dated 30.5.2018,
passed in the Complaint Case No. 1299 of
2017, Smt. Manisha vs. Vivek Kumar and
others, under Section 498-A, 406, 323,
504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, Police
Station-Mahila Thana, District Jhansi,
pending
in
the
court
of
Judicial
Magistrate-I, Jhansi as well as order of the
Revisional Court, dated 15.5.2019, passed
in Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2018,
Smt. Manisha vs. State of U.P. and others,
passed by the Court of Additional District
& Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dacoity
Affected Area, Jhansi, with a prayer for
allowing this application and quashing of
impugned order, dated 30.5.2018 in above
Complaint Case No. 1299 of 2017, as
well as order of the Revisional court,
dated 15.5.2019 and for summoning of
Opposite party nos. 2 , 3, 4, 5 and 6, in
Complaint Case No. 1299 of 2017, Smt.
Manisha vs. Vivek Kumar and others,
under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 and
506 IPC, Police Station Mahila Thana,
Jhansi.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant
argued that the complaint was filed
against Vivek Kumar @ Santosh Kumar
(Husband), Daya Ram Prajapati, Ashok
Kumar
Prajapati,
Ganesh
Prasad
Prajapati, Smt. Poonam @ Pukkhan, and
Smt. Rajni for offence punishable, under
Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 and 506
IPC, read with Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila
Thana, Jhansi, but the learned Magistrate
passed the impugned order of summoning
whereby only Opposite party no.1,
husband of the complainant, has been
summoned for offence, punishable, under
Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 and 506
IPC, read with Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, leaving behind other
accused persons whereas there was
sufficient evidence on record, under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., against
those accused persons, but they were not
summoned. Criminal Revision, under
Section 397 of Cr.P.C. was filed against
the impugned summoning order wherein
the order of Magistrate was confirmed
and revision was dismissed. Hence, this
proceeding, with above prayer.

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

4. This Court, in exercise of inherent
power, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is
not expected to analyze the factual aspect
of the cases because the same remains
with trial court, being question of fact.
2 All. Smt. Manisha @ Ranu Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
637

5. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is the
saving of inherent power of High Court,
with a provision 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.

6. 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
638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded
as above.

8. In the present case, complainant
was examined, under Sections 200 and
202
of
Cr.P.C.
wherein
she
has
specifically levelled accusations against
her husband only. She has said that she
was married with Vivek Kumar on
30.4.2013 at Chirgaon and Vivek Kumar
was in Job at Mumbari. She, after her
marriage, made her first entry in his
nuptial house at Chirgaon and she
remained there for 15 days where her
husband used to to always say that the
marriage was settled for Rs.10 laksh ,as
dowry, whereas complainant's father had
given cash of Rs.8 Lakhs and house hold
goods, valuing to Rs.2 lakhs. Complainant
remained with her husband for one year
and she conceived pregnancy, when she
has been sent to Baruasagar, where she
delivered a family child on 7.7.2014.
Again she was taken to Mumbai and was
illtreated by her husband Vivek Kumar,
who
demanded
Rs.2
lakhs
as
the
additional dowry there-at. He was a
government employee in Railways, who
used to give her of of life and caused
cruelty with the complainant. Her brotherin-law was also in Railways and was
having a flat separately at a distance of
ten steps from her nuptial house. This
illtreatment was owing to exhortion by
husband's sister-in-law. Her husband
beaten her, while at Mumbai. Meaning
thereby, no recital was there against inlaws regarding demand of dowry. Even,
in the complaint, it has been written that
gift was given to her husband by
complaint's parents. Thus, on the basis of
it, only husband was summoned for above
offence and this order was confirmed in
the revision as well by the revisional
Court.

9. In view of above, the orders,
impugned, do not suffer from any
illegality or irregularity or defeat ends of
justice. Hence, this proceeding, by way of
Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
merits rejection and as such Application
stands dismissed accordingly.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 638

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 32634 of 2019

Ramesh Chandra & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Brajesh Shukla

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

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A and Cr.P.C., 1973 - Section 482 -
Applicants
being
father-in-law
and
mother-in-law summoned for offence
punishable under Section 498-A, on basis
of statements recorded under sections
200 & 202 of the Cr.P.C. and after giving
full reasons-Jurisdiction under section
397 Cr.P.C. - Revisional court is never
expected to analyse factual aspect of the
matter -Jurisdiction under section 482 of
the
Code
-
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 or whether the allegations in
the complaint are likely to be established
by evidence or not. (Para 4,5,6,7 & 8)