# Smt. Neha Gupta v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 683
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-06
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 45053 of 2019
- **Bench:** Rajendra Kumar-Iv
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-neha-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45266
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482-Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
not to be exercised in a routine manner,
but it is for limited purposes, namely, to
give effect to any order under the Code,
or to prevent abuse of process of any
Court or otherwise to secure ends of
justice-From perusal of allegations made
in the FIR, statement of witnesses during
investigation, charge sheet submitted by
Investigating Officer, it cannot be said
that no offence is made out against the
accused-applicant and charge sheet has
been
wrongly
submitted-Disputed
question of fact, cannot be adjudicated
upon by this Court in exercise of power
conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

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

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. Smt. Neha Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
683
(2020)1ILR 683

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 45053 of 2019

Smt. Neha Gupta ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Santosh Kumar Giri

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

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482-Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
not to be exercised in a routine manner,
but it is for limited purposes, namely, to
give effect to any order under the Code,
or to prevent abuse of process of any
Court or otherwise to secure ends of
justice-From perusal of allegations made
in the FIR, statement of witnesses during
investigation, charge sheet submitted by
Investigating Officer, it cannot be said
that no offence is made out against the
accused-applicant and charge sheet has
been
wrongly
submitted-Disputed
question of fact, cannot be adjudicated
upon by this Court in exercise of power
conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

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

List of cases cited: -

1. St. of Har. & ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors.
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

2. Popular Muthiah Vs. State rep. by Insp. of
Police (2006) 7 SCC 296

3. Hamida Vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors.
(2008) 1 SCC 474
4. Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr. Vs. St. of U.P. &
Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 781

5. M.N. Ojha & Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav &
Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 682

6. St. of A.P. vs. Gourishetty Mahesh & Ors. JT
2010 (6) SC 588

7. Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Inc.
& Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 74

8. St. of Kar. Vs. L. Muniswamy & ors. 1977 (2)
SCC 699

9. Priya Vrat Singh & ors. Vs. Shyam Ji Sahai,
2008 (8) SCC 232

10. Fakhruddin Ahmad v. St. of Uttaranchal
(2008) 1 SCC 157

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajendra KumarIV, J.)

1. By means of this application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant Smt. Neha
Gupta approached this Court for quashing
the Charge Sheet No.564 of 2018, dated
22.12.2018 submitted in Case Crime
No.744 of 2018 (Session Trial No.51 of
2019) under Sections 302, 323 and 504
IPC, Police Station Shahabad, Distirct
Rampur and entire proceedings thereof.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the
present application are that Informant
Abhinav Gupta submitted an application in
Police Station Shahabad, Distirct Rampur
stating that he was married to Neha Gupta
one and half years back. After some days
relation between husband and wife became
strained due to rude behaviour of his wife.
Often she used to abuse his mother and
after one and half years about she left his
house and started living in her maternal
house and so many false complaints have
been lodged by her against him and his
mother. On 26.10.2018 at about 02:00 PM
684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused-applicant Neha Gupta came to his
house with one Sub Inspector Sunder Lal
and she abused him, tried to quarrel before
Sub Inspector. Sub Inspector Sunder Lal
went away from there but Neha stayed
there. At about 07:00 PM her family
member i.e. her mother Kiran Devi, father
Narendra and brother Anand came to his
house and started beating him and his
mother with intention to kill; they poured
kerosene oil on his mother and set her fire,
on hearing noise his neighbour Monu
came there, he admitted his mother in
Shahabad Hospital where from she was
referred to District Hospital Rampur, later
on to Ishan Hospital Bareilly. On the
application of Abhinav Gupta a case under
Sections 307, 323 and 504 IPC was
registered as Crime No.744 of 2018
agianst Neha, Kiran Devi, Narendra and
Anand.

3. Victim Asha Rani succumbed to
death due to burn injury, in dying
declaration she made statement in support
of prosecution. Matter was investigated
and charge sheet was submitted against
four persons including present applicant.

4. Feeling aggrieved with the charge
sheet, accused-applicant filed present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing the same as well as entire
proceedings.

5. I have heard Sri Santosh Kumar
Giri, learned counsel for applicant, learned
AGA for State and perused the material
available on record.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel
for applicant that no case is made out
against the applicant. She has falsely been
implicated for the purpose of harassment
and humiliation. Investigating Officer did
not investigated and collected material
properly in the matter and submitted
charge
sheet
without
any
sufficient
evidence. He further submitted that
admittedly Neha Gupta is legally wedded
wife of Informant and there was a
matrimonial dispute between both which
are still pending in respective Courts. She
did
not
committed
any
offence.
Investigating Officer of the case is
interested persons. He showed some
papers, statement of witnesses in favour of
his contention.

7. Learned Counsel for the applicant
made a long debate showing and reciting
the statement of witnesses.

8.

Learned
AGA
for
State
vehemently
opposed
the
prayer
for
quashing the charge sheet and submitted
that on the fateful day accused persons
along-with present applicant came to the
house of Informant; started quarrel and
poured kerosene oil on victim Asha Rani
who sustained serious burn injuries and
succumbed to death. Victim has given a
dying declaration, showing the conduct of
accused
persons,
before
her
death.
Investigating Officer, correctly, conducted
investigation and found sufficient evidence
against the accused persons submitted
charge sheet in the Court concerned.

9. I have considered the rival
submissions made by the parties and
perused the records.

10. Before I enter into the facts of the
present case it is necessary to consider the
ambit and scope of jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. vested in the High
Court. Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves the
inherent power of the High Court to make
such orders as may be necessary to give
1 All. Smt. Neha Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
685
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.

11. It is settled that the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised
in a routine manner, but it is for limited
purposes, namely, to give effect to any
order under the Code, or to prevent abuse
of process of any Court or otherwise to
secure ends of justice.

12. Time and again, Apex Court and
various High Courts, have reminded when
exercise of power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. would be justified, which cannot
be placed in straight jacket formula, but
one thing is very clear that it should not
preampt a trial and cannot be used in a
routine manner so as to cut short the entire
process of trial before the Courts below. If
from a bare perusal of first information
report or complaint, it is evident that it
does not disclose any offence at all or it is
frivolous, collusive or oppressive from the
face of it, the Court may exercise its
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
but it should be exercised sparingly. This
will not include as to whether prosecution
is likely to establish its case or not,
whether the evidence in question is
reliable or not or whether on a reasonable
appreciation of it, accusation would not be
sustained, or the other circumstances,
which would not justify exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I
need not go into various aspects in detail
but it would be suffice to refer a few
recent authorities dealing all these matters
in detail, namely, State of Haryana and
others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Popular
Muthiah Vs. State represented by
Inspector of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296,
Hamida vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors.
(2008) 1 SCC 474, Dr. Monica Kumar
and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
(2008) 8 SCC 781, M.N. Ojha and Ors.
Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Anr.
(2009) 9 SCC 682, State of A.P. vs.
Gourishetty Mahesh and Ors. JT 2010
(6) SC 588 and Iridium India Telecom
Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and
Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 74.

13. In State of Karnataka v. L.
Muniswamy and others, reported in,
1977 (2) SCC 699, the Court held that the
High Court is entitled to quash a
proceeding if it comes to the conclusion
that allowing the proceeding to continue
would be an abuse of the process of the
Court or that the ends of justice require
that the proceeding ought to be quashed.

14. In State of Haryana and others
v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335, Court has elaborately considered
the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Although in the above case Court was
considering the power of the High Court to
quash the entire criminal proceeding
including the FIR, the case arose out of an
FIR registered under Section 161, 165 IPC
and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947. Court elaborately
considered the scope of Section 482
Cr.P.C./ Article 226 of the Constitution of
India in the context of quashing the
proceedings in criminal investigation. After
noticing various earlier pronouncements of
Court, Court enumerated certain Categories
of cases by way of illustration where power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised
to prevent abuse of the process of the Court
or secure ends of justice. Paragraph 102
which enumerates 7 categories of cases
where power can be exercised under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. are extracted as
follows:
686 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"102. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by
this Court in a series of decisions relating
to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we
have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly
defined
and
sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive
list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made
in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the
first
information
report
and
other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code
except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of
the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against
the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made
in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground
for
proceeding
against
the
accused.

(6) Where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted)
to
the
institution
and
continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the
Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or
where
the
proceeding
is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due
to private and personal grudge."

15. In Priya Vrat Singh and others
vs. Shyam Ji Sahai, 2008 (8) SCC 232,
Court observed that the inherent power
should not be exercised to stifle a
legitimate prosecution. The High Court
being the highest court of a State should
normally refrain from giving a prima-facie
decision in a case where the entire facts
are incomplete and hazy, more so when
the evidence has not been collected and
produced before the Court and the issues
involved, whether factual or legal, are of
magnitude and cannot be seen in their true
perspective without sufficient material. Of
course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid
down in regard to cases in which the High
Court will exercise its extraordinary
1 All. Rajeev Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
687
jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at
any stage.

16. In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State
of Uttaranchal, reported in, (2008) 1 SCC
157, the Court held that :

"20. So far as the scope and ambit of
the powers of the High Court under Section 482
of the Code is concerned, the same has been
enunciated and reiterated by this Court in a
catena
of
decisions
and
illustrative
circumstances under which the High Court can
exercise
jurisdiction
in
quashing
the
proceedings have been enumerated. However,
for the sake of brevity, we do not propose to
make reference to the decisions on the point. It
would suffice to state that though the powers
possessed by the High Court under the said
provision are very wide but these should be
exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone the Courts exist.
The inherent powers possessed by the High
Court are to be exercised very carefully and
with great caution so that a legitimate
prosecution is not stifled. Nevertheless, where
the High Court is convinced that the allegations
made in the First Information Report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety, do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused or where the
allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused, the
powers of the High Court under the said
provision should be exercised."

17. Present case does not appear to
be covered in any category given in State
of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal
and others (supra).

18. From perusal of allegations made
in the FIR, statement of witnesses during
investigation, charge sheet submitted by
Investigating Officer, it cannot be said that
no offence is made out against the
accused-applicant and charge sheet has
been wrongly submitted.

19. All the submissions made at bar
raised to the disputed question of fact,
cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court
in exercise of power conferred under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.

20. Application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 687

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. 45488 of 2019

Rajeev Kumar & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Dipak Kumar Tiwari

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

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482 - Statement of Complainant u/s 200
Cr.P.C
fully
intact-Reiterated
by
witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C.- Impugned
summoning
order
by
application
of
judicial mind passed against accused on
the
basis
of
evidence
collected
by
Magistrate
in
its
inquiry-
Previous
occurrence
may
be
a
motive
for
subsequent occurrence or it may be a
motive for false accusation, but either