# Smt. Shipra Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 139
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 32683 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-shipra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44754
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law -Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, Section 482 - Malicious
prosecution
-
Applicants
claim
-
complaint filed by way of a counterblast
- Previous institution of another case
may be evidence of motive or cause the
act
complained
either
by
way
of
commission of offence or in self-defence,
by either side. It would be a question of
fact to be decided on the strength of
evidence to be led at the trial court.

Here the summoning order was passed on the
basis of statements recorded under Sections
200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The High Court, in
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C., is not to analyse the factual aspect
because the same is to be seen by the Trial
Court. (Para 6,7,10)

Application u/s 482 dismissed (E-3)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

3 All. Smt. Shipra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
139
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".

9. Meaning thereby, exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded
as above.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, there seems to be no
ground for interfering in the aforesaid
case.

11. The application is accordingly
rejected.
----------
(2019)11ILR A139

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM , J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 32683 of 2019
(u/s 482 Cr.P.C.)

Smt. Shipra Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the .Applicant :
Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Sandeep Mishra.

A. Criminal Law -Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973, Section 482 - Malicious
prosecution
-
Applicants
claim
-
complaint filed by way of a counterblast
- Previous institution of another case
may be evidence of motive or cause the
act
complained
either
by
way
of
commission of offence or in self-defence,
by either side. It would be a question of
fact to be decided on the strength of
evidence to be led at the trial court.

Here the summoning order was passed on the
basis of statements recorded under Sections
200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The High Court, in
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C., is not to analyse the factual aspect
because the same is to be seen by the Trial
Court. (Para 6,7,10)

Application u/s 482 dismissed (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

4. Popular Muthiah Vs St., 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. Heard learned counsel for
applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

2. This application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.
has been filed seeking quashing of the
entire proceeding including summoning
order dated 17.06.2019 in Complaint
Case No. 333 of 2019, under Sections
323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station
140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Expressway Noida, District Gautam Budh
Nagar, Diwakar Pratap Singh Versus
Shipra Singh, pending before Civil Judge
(Senior Division) F.T.C. / A.C.J.M.,
Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for applicant
argued that applicant Shipra Singh is wife
of Diwakar Pratap Singh and there
occurred an occurrence, for which first
information report was got lodged against
Diwakar Pratap Singh and his mother, in
which charge sheet was filed. As a
counter blast, this complaint was filed
with
malicious
prosecution,
wherein
complainant Diwakar Pratap Singh has
given a false statement under Section 200
Cr.P.C. and his two witnesses were of
false contention under Section 202
Cr.P.C. The summoning for offence
punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506
I.P.C. was malicious having no evidence
for it. Hence, this application with above
prayer.

4. Learned counsel for opposite
party no. 2 argued that this complaint was
filed
prior
to
registration
of
first
information
report
lodged
against
Diwakar Pratap Singh and his mother
upon
report
of
Shipra
Singh
on
08.12.2018. The contention was said in
complaint and it was reiterated in
statement recorded under Section 200
Cr.P.C.,
which
was
having
full
corroboration in the testimony of two
witnesses examined under Section 202
Cr.P.C. The trial Magistrate has passed
the impugned summoning order well
within jurisdiction on the basis of
evidence placed on record. Hence, this
application be rejected accordingly.

5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently
opposed the aforesaid prayer.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
both sides and gone through material
placed on record, it is apparent that an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was moved by Diwakar Pratap Singh with
contention that he was married with
Shipra Singh and a daughter Amishi
Singh, aged about eight years, was
blessed by this marriage. Marriage was of
15.02.2008. The behaviour of Shipra
Singh was torturous towards Diwakar
Pratap Singh. She used to abuse very
often. He was under wait that things will
become normal, but of no avail. Rather
she developed illicit relation with a coworker. Complainant left his home, but
she under nefarious design on 24.10.2018
took Rs.45,000/- along with golden and
silver ornaments from a Bank locker,
being
operated
jointly.
Again
on
26.10.2018 cash and jewellery was taken,
which was reported to be opened by
Shipra Singh on 26.10.2018. Again a
threat with abuse was extended through
telephonic
call
on
28.10.2018.
Complainant was offensive of future of
his daughter, aged about eight years, but
Shipra Singh used to beat her very often,
which was recorded in C.C.T.V. footage.
Shipra Singh hatched conspiracy for
killing complainant under assistance of
others. A report was made at police
station
as
well
as
to
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Gautam Buddh
Nagar, but of no avail. Hence, this
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was
moved.
It
was
registered
as
complaint case, wherein complainant was
examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and
his two witnesses were examined under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. The very contention
of
complaint
was
reiterated
and
corroborated in those testimony and after
perusal of same learned Magistrate passed
impugned summoning order for offence
3 All. Smt. Shipra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
141
punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506
I.P.C.

7. Previous institution of case by
Shipra Singh against Diwakar Pratap
Singh and his mother is an evidence of
motive or cause either in execution of
offence or in defence by either side. The
same is a question of evidence and of fact
to be seen in trial court. In present case
the summoning order is passed on the
basis of evidence obtained under Sections
200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

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
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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".

10.

In
exercise
of
inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
this Court is not to analise the factual
aspect because the same being question of
trial and of fact to be seen before trial
Court. Hence, in overall appreciation of
facts and law, mentioned as above, this
application merits its dismissal.

11.The application is accordingly
dismissed.

11. The application is accordingly
dismissed.
----------

(2019)11ILR A142

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM , J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.37366 of 2019
u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Munna Prasad Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.
A. Criminal Law -Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Minute details,
involving
appreciation
of
facts
and
evidence,
cannot
be
looked
into
in
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., being outside
the limits propounded by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. (Para 5,6,8)

Criminal Application rejected (E-3)

List of cases cited: -

1. St. of A.P Vs Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT (2010)
(6) SC 588

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., Rep. Insp. of Police,
(2006) 7 SCC 296

5. Dhanlakshmi Vs R.Prasana Kumar, AIR
(1990) SC 494

6. St. of Bihar Vs Murad Ali Khan, AIR (1989) SC 1

7. Amrawati & anr. Vs St. of U.P., (2005) Cri.L.J 755

8. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs St. of U.P.
(2009) 4 SCC 437
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J. )

1. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Ram Sahay,
Shriram, Nisha Devi, Vandana and Ajay
against State of U.P. and Hari Lal Yadav
with
prayer
for
quashing
entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4314
of 2019, Harilal Yadav Vs. Ram Sahay
and others, under Sections 323, 504, 452,
379
I.P.C., P.S.
Saraimeer,
district
Azamgarh, pending in court of A.C.J.M,
Court No. 12, Azamgarh.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned A.G.A. for the
State.
Perused
the
records.