# Smt. Pooja v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4285 of 2012
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-07
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4285 of 2012
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-pooja-v-state-of-u-p-46378
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law-Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Sections 482 -
Inherent jurisdiction - Section 227 -
Discharge - Section 228 Cr.P.C. -
Framing of charge - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201
I.P.C.
-
exercise
of
inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is within the limits. (Para-10)

Statement of accused, made to police, while in
custody, is not admissible - statement of
accomplices and statements in close proximity
of time and their conduct are to be seen at the
time of making of judicial decision making -
learned trial court concluded for framing of
charge for offence of conspiracy for murder,
followed by murder of neighbour, against
applicant and this was on the basis of evidence,
on the basis of which charge sheet was filed
and cognizance was taken by Magistrate - there
was
sufficient
reason
and
evidence
on
record.(Para-6)

HELD:- Trial court at the stage of disposal of
application under Section 227, 228 Cr.P.C. need
not to make meticulous analysis of evidence on
record. Rather a prima facie case is to be seen
as to whether there exist prima facie case for
framing of charge and prima facie case is to be
decided in view of guidelines given by apex
court in Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, JT 2010 (10) SC 413. (Para-5)

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

List Of Cases Cited:-

## Text

3-5 All. Smt. Pooja Vs. State of U.P.
1625
number, name of accused and Sections of
IPC were written by pen and rest of the
contents are on a printed proforma order. It
is well settled that summoning order has to
be
passed
after
considering
relevant
material and showing appropriate reasons.

15. Considering the above-stated facts
and law as referred above, it is apparent
that there is nothing to indicate that the said
impugned order has been passed after
applying judicial mind and thus, the
impugned
summoning
order
dated
07.11.2019
is
not
sustainable
and,
accordingly, the impugned summoning
order dated 07.11.2019 is, hereby, set aside
and learned trial court is directed to pass
order afresh, in accordance with law.

16. With the aforesaid observations,
the instant application is disposed of
finally.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1625
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4285 of 2012

Smt. Pooja ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Shyam Babu Vaish, Sri J.B. Kesharwani,
Sri Rama Shanker Mishra

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

(A) Criminal Law-Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Sections 482 -
Inherent jurisdiction - Section 227 -
Discharge - Section 228 Cr.P.C. -
Framing of charge - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201
I.P.C.
-
exercise
of
inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is within the limits. (Para-10)

Statement of accused, made to police, while in
custody, is not admissible - statement of
accomplices and statements in close proximity
of time and their conduct are to be seen at the
time of making of judicial decision making -
learned trial court concluded for framing of
charge for offence of conspiracy for murder,
followed by murder of neighbour, against
applicant and this was on the basis of evidence,
on the basis of which charge sheet was filed
and cognizance was taken by Magistrate - there
was
sufficient
reason
and
evidence
on
record.(Para-6)

HELD:- Trial court at the stage of disposal of
application under Section 227, 228 Cr.P.C. need
not to make meticulous analysis of evidence on
record. Rather a prima facie case is to be seen
as to whether there exist prima facie case for
framing of charge and prima facie case is to be
decided in view of guidelines given by apex
court in Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, JT 2010 (10) SC 413. (Para-5)

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

List Of Cases Cited:-

1. Sajjan Kumar Vs. C.B.I., JT 2010 (10) SC 413

2. Palwinder Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh & ors.,
(2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 504

3. Shoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors Vs St. Of U.P. &
anr., AIR 2013 Supreme Court 52.

4. St. of A.P. Vs Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010
(6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ
3844

5. Hamida Vs Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474
1626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. Monica Kumar Vs St. of U.P., (2008) 8 SCC
781,

7. Popular Muthiah Vs. State, Represented by
Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296

8. St. of Bihar Vs. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ
1005: AIR 1989 SC 1

9. Dhanlakshmi Vs. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr
LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.)

1. The applicant, by means of this
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has
invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court with prayer to quash the impugned
order
dated
18.01.2012,
passed
by
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3,
Bulandshahar in Session Trial No. 579 of
2011, arising out of Case Crime No.175 of
2010, State Versus Madan and others,
under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police
Station Ahmedgarh, District Bulandshahar.

2.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and
perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for applicant argued
that applicant is of no concern with offence of
murder of Sonu. There is no connecting
evidence against her. On the basis of her
confessional statement, charge sheet has been
filed, whereas prosecution version is that she
was under illicit relation with Anil. It was
witnessed by Sonu and Ganesh, who were
residing with husband of applicant at his home.
They protested this illicit relation. Applicant
entered in conspiracy with Anil for getting rid
from Ganesh and Sonu. In between, Anil was
murdered, wherein Ganesh and Sonu were
accused for offence of murder. Ganesh was
detained in judicial custody. Sonu was
subsequently murdered. For this offence of
murder, case was got registered against one
Madan. Subsequently, Madan and Deepak
were added as party and on the basis of alleged
illicit relation, charge sheet has been filed
against applicant. Learned Additional Sessions
Judge opined and framed charge for offence
punishable under Section 302, 201 I.P.C.,
which was challenged before this Court in
Application U/S 482 No. 26741 of 2011 and
this Court vide order dated 21.11.2011 allowed
above application, thereby quashed order of
framing of charge against applicant. The file
was remanded back to trial court for hearing
afresh and passing order over application
moved under Section 227 Cr.P.C., in view of
discussions, made by this Court, in above order.
After hearing both sides, application under
Section 227 Cr.P.C. was rejected and
subsequently an order for framing of charge for
offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.
and its conspiracy punishable under Section
201 I.P.C. was passed, which has been assailed
in this proceeding.

4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently
opposed
the
application
with
this
contention that there is a prima facie case
for filing of charge sheet and cognizance
taken over it. At the time of framing of
charge, meticulous and detailed analysis of
facts is not to be made by trial court. Even
on the basis of strong suspicion, charge
may be framed and it has been rightly been
framed
by
trial
court.
Hence,
this
application be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
both sides and gone through material
placed on record coupled with order of this
Court, passed in Application U/S 482 No.
26741 of 2011 (supra), it is apparent that
trial court at the stage of disposal of
application under Section 227, 228 Cr.P.C.
need not to make meticulous analysis of
evidence on record. Rather a prima facie
3-5 All. Smt. Pooja Vs. State of U.P.
1627
case is to be seen as to whether there exist
prima facie case for framing of charge and
prima facie case is to be decided in view of
guidelines given by apex court in Sajjan
Kumar
Vs.
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation, JT 2010 (10) SC 413. The
apex court in Palwinder Singh Vs.
Balwinder Singh and others; (2008) 14
Supreme
Court
Cases
504
has
propounded that jurisdiction of learned
Sessions Judge, while exercising power
under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is limited.
Charge can be framed also on the basis of
strong
suspicion.
Marshaling
and
appreciation of evidence is not in the
domain of court at that point of time. Pretrial acquittal not permitted. Pre-trial
charge acquittal is never accepted. The
Court cannot appreciate evidence at the
stage of framing of charge. The same law
has been propounded by apex court in
Shoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors vs State Of
U.P. & Anr; AIR 2013 Supreme Court
52.

6. In present case, initially charge
was framed for offence under Sections
302, 201 I.P.C. and this order was set
aside by Court, as above, with a
direction for deciding the same afresh.
The accusations since the lodging of
first information report was that Smt.
Pooja was under illicit relations with
Anil and it was seen by her Dewar
(brother-in-law) and Sonu (neighbour),
who had protested it. This compelled
Pooja for hatching conspiracy with Anil
for getting rid from Ganesh and Sonu.
Ganesh and Sonu were taken by Anil to
the shop of Deepak at Delhi. They were
present in company in close proximity
of time when Anil was found dead and a
case was got lodged for offence of
murder of Anil against Ganesh and
Sonu, wherein Ganesh is in judicial
custody. For getting rid of Sonu and for
getting the revenge of above murder,
Madan and Deepak hatched conspiracy
with Smt. Pooja, wherein Sonu was
taken by Madan and Deepak and under
close proximity of time he remained
with them. Subsequently, his dead body
was
found.
Autopsy
examination
followed
by
inquest
proceeding
established death of Sonu as a result of
anti mortem injuries. Meaning thereby,
it was not a suicide or accidental death.
Rather it was a homicide death and this
homicide
death
was
instantly
complained by his father to be a murder
by Smt. Pooja under conspiracy with
Madan and Deepak and motive for this
conspiracy was said to be illicit relation
in between Anil and Pooja, for which
there
was
persistent
resistance
by
Ganesh and Sonu. Last seen evidence of
Sonu being in company of Deepak and
Madan; the motive for this murder;
hatching of conspiracy for elimination
of Ganesh and Sonu by Pooja in
connivance with Anil; subsequently
with Deepak and Madan was therein
case
diary.
The
other
witnesses,
examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
have reiterated those ingredients. It was
coupled with statement of those coaccused persons as well as of Smt.
Pooja. Though, statement of accused,
made to police, while in custody, is not
admissible, but it being a statement of
accomplices and statements in close
proximity of time and their conduct are
to be seen at the time of making of
judicial decision making, but under all
those facts and circumstances, learned
trial court concluded for framing of
charge for offence of conspiracy for
murder, followed by murder of Sonu,
against applicant Pooja and this was on
the basis of evidence, on the basis of
1628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which charge sheet was filed and
cognizance was taken by Magistrate.
Hence,
for
this
order,
there
was
sufficient reason and evidence
on
record.

7. Moreso, this Court, in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C., is not to embark upon factual
matrix, because it may prejudice fair trial.

8. Saving of inherent power of High
Court, as given under 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.
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".

9. 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
3-5 All. Deepak Jha Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1629
embark upon an enquiry whether the
allegations in the complaint are likely to be
established by evidence or not".

10. Meaning thereby, exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as
above. Accordingly, this application merits
its dismissal. The application is dismissed
as such.
----------

(2020)03-05ILR A1629
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 4487 of 2020

Deepak Jha ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Mahesh Kumar Tripathi

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

(A)
Criminal
Law-
Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138-
Printed proforma - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 -
Inherent jurisdiction - - Magistrate
not
required
to
pass
detailed
reasoned order at the time of taking
cognizance on the charge sheet - does
not
mean
that
order
of
taking
cognizance can be passed by filling up
the blanks on printed proforma -
apply judicial mind and even the order
of
taking
cognizance
cannot
be
passed
in
mechanical
manner
-
impugned order quashed. (Para - 9)
Complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act - Magistrate after recording the
statement of the complainant as well as
witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. -
summoned the applicant - Magistrate not
applied judicial mind in passing the summoning
order - order made on a printed proforma -
where only information of case number, name
of parties, section, date and next date is to be
filled by Magistrate in handwriting. (Para -3,4 )

HELD:- The conduct of the judicial officers
concerned
in
passing
orders
on
printed
proforma by filling up the blanks without
application of judicial mind is objectionable and
deserves to be deprecated - The summoning of
an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter
and the order must reflect that Magistrate had
applied his mind to the facts as well as law
applicable thereto. (Para - 10)

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

List Of Cases Cited:-

1. Ankit Vs. St. of U.P. & anr., JIC 2010 (1) 432,

2. Megh Nath Guptas & anr. Vs. St. of U.P. &
anr., 2008 (62) ACC 826

3. Deputy Chief Controller Import and Export Vs
Roshan Lal Agarwal, 2003 (4) ACC 686 (SC)

4. UP Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan Meakins,
2000 (2) JIC 159 (SC): AIR 2000 SC 1456

5. Kanti Bhadra Vs St. of W.B., 2000 (1) JIC 751
(SC): 2000 (40) ACC 441 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan , J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. This application has been filed for
setting aside the entire proceeding of
Complaint Case No.1946 of 2016 (Pawan
Kumar Vs. Deepak Jha), under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police
Station Prem Nagar, District Jhansi, arising