# Smt. Pinki Gautam @ Geeta Devi & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 576
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-12
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 23730 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-pinki-gautam-geeta-devi-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47759
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power ,Section 227 - Discharge , Section
228 - framing of charge , Section 239 -
When accused shall be discharged -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419,
420, 467 & 468 - disputed law of facts
cannot be adjudicated upon by Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - only prima
facie case is to be seen - disputed defence
of accused cannot be considered.(Para -
14)
10 All. Smt. Pinki Gautam @ Geeta Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
577
Applicants filed discharge application under
Section 239, 227 Cr.P.C. - Chief Judicial
Magistrate
illegally
rejected
discharge
application
without
giving
any
finding
-
applicants filed criminal revision - dismissed -
Court in revision passed a speaking order - no
role assigned to accused-applicant No.2 -
husband of applicant No.1 - two versions of
same question - matter liable to be tried on the
basis of evidence recorded during trial -
accused-applicants filed some documentary
evidence in support of their version that both
are same person - documents not part of
investigation or case diary .(Para -3,4,10)

HELD:-Courts below have not committed
illegality by rejecting discharge application of
accused-applicants. While considering discharge
application courts below are not expected to go
through the documents placed before it in
support of their case forming not a part of
police report.(Para - 13)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of
with a direction. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from this point of view too, the present
application filed on behalf of the applicants
can succeed.

30. In this case, it appears that
criminal proceedings are being taken
recourse to as a weapon of harassment
against a purchaser and his marginal
witnesses.

31. The FIR does not disclose any
offence so far as the applicants are concerned.
There is no whisper of how and in what
manner, these applicants are involved in any
criminal offence. There can be no doubt that
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
should be used sparingly for the purpose of
preventing abuse of the process of any court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

32. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, rival
submissions
made,
admitted
fact
that
originally property was recorded in the name
of Satya Narain, registered Will deed was in
favour of Dwarika Prasad and Others,
mutation order in favour of Dwarika Prsad,
their being a long litigation between the
Informant and Dwarika Prasad, mutation
made by Tehsildar in favour of the applicant
No.3 after ignoring the objection made by
Informant and dispute mainly being of civil
nature, their being a registered sale-deed in
favour of applicant-Madhu Gupta executed
by applicant No.3 Dwarika Prasad recorded
tenure holder of the property, I am of the
considered
opinion
that
allowing
the
prosecution to continue against the applicants
is abuse of process of law and it should be
quashed.

33. In view of above, application,
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. succeeds and
is, accordingly, allowed. Charge-sheet
dated 05.04.2010 and entire criminal
proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3609
of 2010, under Sections 419, 420, 467,
468 and 471 IPC, arising out of Case
Crime No. 285 of 2010, Police Station
Siddharth
Nagar,
District
Siddharth
Nagar, are hereby quashed.

34. The petition stands disposed of
accordingly.

35. Certify the judgment to trial court
concerned through District Judge for
compliance forthwith.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 576
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 23730 of 2022

Smt. Pinki Gautam @ Geeta Devi & Anr.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Onkar Nath

Counsel for theOpposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power ,Section 227 - Discharge , Section
228 - framing of charge , Section 239 -
When accused shall be discharged -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419,
420, 467 & 468 - disputed law of facts
cannot be adjudicated upon by Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - only prima
facie case is to be seen - disputed defence
of accused cannot be considered.(Para -
14)
10 All. Smt. Pinki Gautam @ Geeta Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
577
Applicants filed discharge application under
Section 239, 227 Cr.P.C. - Chief Judicial
Magistrate
illegally
rejected
discharge
application
without
giving
any
finding
-
applicants filed criminal revision - dismissed -
Court in revision passed a speaking order - no
role assigned to accused-applicant No.2 -
husband of applicant No.1 - two versions of
same question - matter liable to be tried on the
basis of evidence recorded during trial -
accused-applicants filed some documentary
evidence in support of their version that both
are same person - documents not part of
investigation or case diary .(Para -3,4,10)

HELD:-Courts below have not committed
illegality by rejecting discharge application of
accused-applicants. While considering discharge
application courts below are not expected to go
through the documents placed before it in
support of their case forming not a part of
police report.(Para - 13)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of
with a direction. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-
1. Sunil Kumar Jha & ors. Vs St. of Bihar , Crl.
Misc. Case No. 22050 of 1996

2. Smt. Kalawati Vs St. of U.P. , Crl. ,Revision
No. 1012 of 1990

3. St. of Orisa Vs Devendra Nath Padhi, 2003
Vol. II SCC 711 Paragarah 11

4. Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chandra & anr.,
(2012) 9 SCC 460

5. U.O.I. Vs Praful Kumar Samal, 1979 (3) SCC 4

6. R.P. Kapur Vs St. of Punj., A.I.R. 1960 S.C.
866

7. St. of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.)
426

8. St. of Bihar Vs P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192

9. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq & anr., 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283
10. Satender Kumar Antil Vs C.B.I. & anr.,
(2021) 10 SCC 773

11. Brahm Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2016 (95) ACC 950

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned AGA for the State
and perused the record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application
has been filed to quash the order dated
28.3.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate
Etah rejecting the Discharge Application
filed by the applicants in Criminal Case
No.3125 of 2016 (State vs. Geeta Devi and
another) arising out of Case Crime No.0063
of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468
I.P.C., P.S. Naya Gaon, District Etah,
pending before the Additional Civil Judge,
Court No. 26 and also quash the revisional
order dated 22.6.2022, passed by the
Additional Session Judge, Court No.1,
Etah, in Criminal Revision No.64 of 2018,
Smt. Geeta @ Pinki and another vs. State
of U.P. and another, on grounds taken in
affidavit accompanied with the petition.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that in present case false and
fabricated first information report was
lodged
against
the
applicants.
The
applicants filed Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No.18182 of 2015 before this
Court for quashing the FIR dated 16.7.2015
and the same was disposed of on
30.7.2015, in which this Court had granted
stay order in favour of the applicants till
submission
of
charge-sheet.
The
investigation was done by the Investigating
Officer in perfunctory manner and chargesheet was submitted illegally against the
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicants. After filing of charge-sheet, the
applicants again filed an application Under
Section 482 No. 24597 of 2016, which was
disposed of on 17.8.2016 with observation
that Court below shall proceed in the light
of judgment dated 8.7.2016 passed in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15609 of
2016 (Brahm Singh 2 others vs. Sate of
U.P. and 2 others). The applicants filed a
discharge application under Section 239,
227 Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, stating therein that Pinki
Gautam and Geeta Devi are same person
and in support of this contention, the
applicants have submitted 24 documents
but learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
concerned illegally rejected the discharge
application without giving any finding, on
assumption that charge-sheet has been
submitted on 1.7.2016 and the applicants
have not appeared before the Court ill date
whereas applicants were already appeared
before the court concerned through their
counsel. The applicants had filed a criminal
revision before court of session against the
order of learned Magistrate rejecting their
discharge application. However, the said
criminal revision has also been dismissed
vide order dated 22.6.2022 by Additional
Session Judge, Court No.1, Etah. No case is
made out against the applicants under
Section 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. on the
basis that applicant No.1 is still working as
Anganbadi Worker, posted in village Nagla
Mai, Village Panchayat Ubhai Asad Nagar,
Block Aliganj, District Etah. Applicants are
innocent and falsely implicated in the case.

4. In the present case, no role has
been assigned to accused-applicant No.2,
who is husband of applicant No.1. An
enquiry
was
conducted
by
District
Programming Officer, Etah about applicant
No.1, in which it was found that opposite
party No.2 has filed false complaint against
applicant No.1, prompted by ulterior
motive and in that enquiry it has also been
found that Pinki and Geeta are same person
and complaint of opposite party No.2 was
rejected. A copy of enquiry report is filed
with the affidavit in the present case.
Applicant No.1 had never taken admission
in D.A.V. Inter College, Aligarh and her
school leaving Certificate of that school is a
fake document, fabricated by opposite
party No.2 in the name of Geeta Kumari, in
which date of birth of applicant No.1 is
7.3.1982. Father of applicant No.1 also
submitted affidavit before S.S.P., Etah,
wherein he has stated that he is blessed
with three sons namely, Anoop, Amit
Kumar, Abhishek and three daughters
namely, Pinki Gautam @ Geeta, Rinki and
Rashmi. District Programming Officer,
Etah has reported to District Magistrate,
Etah by letter dated 28.12.2015 that the
domestic name of Smt. Pinki Gautam is
Geeta, who has not filed academic
documents of her younger siblings Rinki
and Rashmi and she was duly selected as
Anganbadi worker on the basis of seniority.

5. On the basis of first information
report and material placed on record,
factual matrix of the prosecution case is
that informant Ajit Pratap Singh lodged
FIR with police station concerned on
16.5.2015 on the basis of written report
stating therein that her co-villager Geeta
Devi had married with Ashok Kumar after
elopment with him without knowledge of
her father and her father had lodged an FIR
in the matter. In the course of time, case
was compromised and Ashok Kumar
purchased a plot of area 5 bigha in the year
1997 in the name of Geeta Devi and three
children born out of the wedlock. In
primary school Nagla, the name of mother
of elder daughter of Geeta Devi is entered
as Smt. Geeta Devi and Gram Panchayat
10 All. Smt. Pinki Gautam @ Geeta Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
579
Namawali-2009 and Parivar Register also
her name is entered as Smt. Geeta Devi.
She has received education from D.A.V.
Inter College, Aligarh up to Class IIX and
was selected as Anganwadi Worker in the
2009 and therefore, she projected herself as
Pinki Gautam whereas there are only two
daughters of Sadhuram i.e. Geeta Devi and
Pinki Devi. Husband of Pinki is in military
service. Geeta Devi has also changed her
name as Pinki Devi in Voter ID Card and in
this way, she procured the service of
Anganbadi worker by presenting herself as
Pinki Devi.

6. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the
accused-applicants
have
not
appeared
before the court concerned in person. They
have moved discharge application before
the trial court without surrender and
moving bail application and they are still
not bailed out. The discharge application
cannot be moved by applicants in a serious
offence like present one without appearing
before the Court and seeking bail. There is
no direction of superior Court in this
respect that they could move discharge
application through counsel. The role of
applicant No.2- husband of applicant No.1
is that of facilitator and assisted applicant
No.1 in the present case of cheating and
forgery. This fact has been stated in the
impugned order of revisional court that the
accused applicants have moved discharge
application without appearing before the
court.

7. In the present case, the identity of
Geeta Devi and Pinki Gautam is in
question. According to the prosecution case
version, both are different persons whereas
the accused persons tried to established that
both are same person and they have placed
reliance
on
the
report
of
District
Programming Officer, Etah under whom
applicant No.1- Smt. Pinki Gautam wife of
Ashok Kumar was working. In sale deed
executed by accused applicants in favour of
Prateek Kumar dated 8.10.2012, the name
of vendor No.2 is mentioned as Geeta
Kumari @ Pinki, wife of Ashok Kumar. An
FIR at the instance of Pinki Gautam @
Geeta was lodged against the Ajeet Pratap
and another unknown, on 16.5.2015 under
Sections 332, 353, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. &
3(I)(XI) of SC/ST Act and the present FIR
is said to be counter blast of that FIR. In
copy of family register of Sadhuram, name
of his three daughters Geeta @ Pinki, Rinki
and Rashmi is mentioned.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court has again
discussed the scope of 227 and 228 Cr.P.C.
in Sunil Kumar Jha and Others Vs. State
of Bihar in Crl. Misc. Case No. 22050 of
1996 decided on 5.2.1997. Para 6 is herein
under:-

"From
bare
perusal
and
comparison of the aforesaid two provisions
it appears that while in the case of
discharge of an accused under Section 227
of the Code it is obligatory for the Judge to
record his reasons for doing so. But while
framing charge under Section 228 of the
Code the provision does not say in a very
specific word that the Court msut record
reasons. Nevertheless Section 228 provides
that while framing charge, the Court must
be of the opinion that there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed
an offence. In other words, there must be
valid reasons and foundation for framing
an opinion that the accused has committed
an offence."

9. The case decided by Allahabad
High Court in Smt. Kalawati Vs. State of
U.P. decided on 11.7.1990 passed in Crl.
Revision No. 1012 of 1990 wherein it has
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been held that though the full statements of
the witnesses need not be discussed but
prima
facie
case
should
be
briefly
indicated. Para 3 is herein under :

"It is true that for determining
prima facie case court need not weigh or
sift the evidence or make roving enquiry. It
need not give full statements of the
witnesses. Evidently for a judicial speaking
order it is necessary that the evidence
constituting prima facie case should be
briefly indicated and should not be
substituted
by
vague
words
or
by
conclusion alone."

10. On perusal of impugned order of
learned Magistrate, it appears that the
prima facie case has been made out for
framing of charge. This fact has been cited
in discharge application that arrest of the
accused persons was stayed by Hon'ble
High court till filing of chargesheet. They
have not appeared in the court in person.
The learned Revisional Court in revision
has passed an elaborate order in which the
case of both sides have been discussed and
Session Judge also passed a judicial
speaking
order
citing
the
evidence
constituting prima facie case against the
applicants for framing of charge. He has
passed a speaking order while rejecting the
revision filed by the accused applicants and
dismissing the documentary evidence filed
in support of prosecution case alongwith
case diary and has observed that it is
evident that Geeta Devi and Pinki Gautam
are different women. As there are two
versions of same question, the matter is
liable to be tried as only on the basis of
evidence
recorded
during
trial,
this
disputed question can be finally settled that
whether Geeta Devi and Pinki Gautam are
same woman or different. The accusedapplicants have filed some documentary
evidence in support of their version that
both are same person. It appears that these
documents are not part of investigation or
case diary and in this connection the law
laid down by Supreme Court in the case of
State of Orisa Vs. Devendra Nath Padhi,
2003 Vol. II SCC 711 Paragarah 11,
although
this
judgment
relates
to
Prevention of Corruption Act and not
applicable although paragraphs No.11 of
the said judgment of quoted below:-

Para11:"
From
the
above
judgments referred to by the learned
counsel for the appellant, it is clear that all
the court has to do a the time of framing a
charge is to consider the question of
sufficiency of ground for proceeding
against
the
accused
on
a
general
consideration of the material placed before
it by the investigating agency. There is no
requirement in law that the court at that
stage should either give an opportunity to
the accused to produce evidence in defence
or consider such evidence the defence may
produced at that stage".

11. In Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh
Chandra and Another, (2012) 9 SCC 460,
Hon'ble Apex Court had discussed the
extent of scop of power exercisable by
High
Court
under
Section
397
independently or read with Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and
held that framing of a charge is an exercise
of jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of
Section 228 of the Code, unless the accused
is discharged under Section 227 of the
Code. Under both these provisions, the
court is required to consider the ?record of
the
case?
and
documents
submitted
therewith and, after hearing the parties,
may either discharge the accused or where
it appears to the court and in its opinion
there is ground for presuming that the
10 All. Smt. Pinki Gautam @ Geeta Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
581
accused has committed an offence, it shall
frame the charge. Once the facts and
ingredients of the Section exists, then the
Court would be right in presuming that
there is ground to proceed against the
accused and frame the charge accordingly.
This presumption is not a presumption of
law as such. The satisfaction of the court in
relation to the existence of constituents of
an offence and the facts leading to that
offence is a sine qua non for exercise of
such jurisdiction. At the initial stage of
framing of a charge, the court is concerned
not with proof but with a strong suspicion
that the accused has committed an offence,
which, if put to trial, could prove him
guilty. All that the court has to see is that
the material on record and the facts would
be compatible with the innocence of the
accused or not. The final test of guilt is not
to be applied at that stage.

12. In Union of India Vs. Praful
Kumar Samal, reported in 1979 (3) SCC
4 Hon'ble Apex Court had held that by and
large however if two views are equally
possible and the Judge is satisfied that the
evidence produced before him while
giving rise to some suspicion but not grave
suspicion against the accused, he will be
fully within his right to discharge the
accused.

13. Keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case and the law laid
down in above cites cases, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the courts
below have not committed illegality by
rejecting discharge application of accusedapplicants as while considering discharge
application the courts below are not
expected to go through the documents
placed before it in support of their case
forming not a part of police report.

14. It is well settled law that disputed
law of facts cannot be adjudicated upon by
this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At
this stage only prima facie case is to be
seen in the light of the law laid down by
Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs.
State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866,
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992
SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs.
P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and
lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works
Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and
another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
The disputed defence of accused cannot be
considered at this stage.

15. The prayer for quashing the
entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is
refused.

16.

Accordingly,
the
present
application is disposed of and trial court is
required to frame charges against the
accused-applicants in appropriate sections
which are made out on the basis of
material place on record.

17. As the accused-applicants are
admittedly not enlarged on bail, it is
directed that in case 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 Apex Court in the cases
of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another,
(2021) 10 SCC 773 and Brahm Singh
and others vs. State of UP and others,
2016 (95) ACC 950.

18. For a period of 30 days, no
coercive measure shall be taken against
the applicants in the aforesaid case.
----------
582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022) 10 ILRA 582
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 25082 of 2022

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Ashok Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 & 506 -
Court can invoke its jurisdiction u/s 482
Cr.P.C. even in non-compoundable offence
- can quash the proceedings on the basis
of settlement arrived at between the
parties
even
in
the
cases
of
noncompoundable offences - while exercising
its jurisdiction Court must consider the
fact that whether the proceeding relates
to any serious and heinous offences and
whether the crime in question has impact
over the society - In cases of serious
nature which affects the society at large -
Court should not exercise its jurisdiction
under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the
proceedings on the basis of compromise
executed between the parties. (Para -
13,22 )

Present case relates to offence u/s 307 IPC - 14
accused persons involved - fire arms weapons
used - Two persons sustained injuries - injury of
one injured found dangerous to life - all
applicants with common object participated in
commission of crime - offence u/s 307 IPC is
serious offence - Such offences have serious
impact upon society - prima facie cognizable
offence made out against applicants - question -
whether on the basis of compromise executed
between the parties proceeding of such cases
can be quashed. (Para -11,25 )

HELD:-
Offences
alleged
to
have
been
committed by applicants are crime against the
society. It cannot be said that the present
dispute is private in nature and does not affect
the society at large. Therefore, proceedings of
such cases should not be quashed on the basis
of
settlement
arrived
at
between
the
parties.(Para -27 )

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-
1. Gian Singh Vs Punj., (2012)10 SCC 303

2. Nareinder Singh Vs St. of Punj. , (2014) 9
SCC 466

3.
Parbatbhai
Aahir
@
Parbathbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & ors. Vs St. of Guj. &
anr. ,(2017) 9 SCC 641

4. St. of M.P. VS Laxmi Narayan & ors. , (2019)
5 SCC 688

5. Arun Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. Through its
Secretary & anr. , 2020 (3) SCC 736

6. Ram Gopal & anr. Vs St. of M.P. , 2021 0
Supreme (SC) 529

7. Daxaben Vs The St. of Guj. & ors. ,2022
LiveLaw (SC) 642

8. P. Dharmraj Vs Shanmugam & ors. , Crl.
Appeal Nos. 1515-1516 of 2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sameer Jain, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the applicants and Dr.
S.B. Maurya, learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

2. The instant application has been
moved by the applicants with a prayer to