# Smt. Ummeda Fatima v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 1119
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-19
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Appl. u/s 482 No. 34490 of 2015
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ummeda-fatima-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-46104
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A.G.A.,
Sri
Azim
Ahmad
Kazmi,
Sri
Khurshed Alam

A. Criminal Law - Application u/s 482 -
Exercise of inherent jurisdiction - U.P.
Revenue Code: Section 114(c); Land
Revenue Act: Section 34; Criminal Law
Amendment Act: Section 7 - This court in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s.
482
Cr.P.C.
is
not
expected
to
meticulously
analyse
the
facts
and
evidence as it is matter of trial to be seen
during trial. Meaning thereby, exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
within the limits. High Court would not embark
upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the
complaint are likely to be established by
evidence or not. (Para 14, 17)

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. Inherent jurisdiction u/s 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.
(Para 15)

B. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised
in respect of substantive as well as
procedural matters - 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
1120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

C. U/s 482, proceedings can be quashed
but there should be justification for
inference - 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. (Para 16)

Application dismissed. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

## Text

1 All. Smt. Ummeda Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1119
Standing Counsel for the State and perused
the material available on record.

7. Admittedly, the petitioners were
given temporary appointment on the post of
Survey Lekhpal vide appointment letter
dated 11.07.1996 and by the impugned
termination order dated 06.11.1996 the said
appointment/promotion has been cancelled
on the basis of circular dated 17.09.1996
issued by the Board of Revenue directing
the concerned authorities to cancel all
appointments/promotions so that retrenched
employees of Kaimoor Survey Agency
could be absorbed. It has been revered that
all retrenched employees of Kaimoor
Survey Agency had already been absorbed.

8. It appears that all the retrenched
employees of Kaimoor Survey Agency had
already been absorbed prior to passing of
the impugned order. In the circumstances of
the case, therefore, the basis on which the
appointment/promotion of the petitioners
have been cancelled is not non-existent.

9. Subject to the above observations,
the writ petition succeeds and the same is
hereby allowed. The impugned termination
order dated 06.11.1996 (Annexure No.5 to
the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The
petitioners
are
held
entitled
to
consequential benefits.

10. However, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, there will be no
order as to costs.
----------

(2021)01ILR A1119
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.
Crl. Misc. Appl. u/s 482 No. 34490 of 2015

Smt. Ummeda Fatima ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nazrul Islam Jafri, Sri S.A. Ansari, Sri
S.I. Jafri

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.,
Sri
Azim
Ahmad
Kazmi,
Sri
Khurshed Alam

A. Criminal Law - Application u/s 482 -
Exercise of inherent jurisdiction - U.P.
Revenue Code: Section 114(c); Land
Revenue Act: Section 34; Criminal Law
Amendment Act: Section 7 - This court in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction u/s.
482
Cr.P.C.
is
not
expected
to
meticulously
analyse
the
facts
and
evidence as it is matter of trial to be seen
during trial. Meaning thereby, exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
within the limits. High Court would not embark
upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the
complaint are likely to be established by
evidence or not. (Para 14, 17)

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. Inherent jurisdiction u/s 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.
(Para 15)

B. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised
in respect of substantive as well as
procedural matters - 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
1120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

C. U/s 482, proceedings can be quashed
but there should be justification for
inference - 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. (Para 16)

Application dismissed. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

1. St. of An. Pr. Vs Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010
(6) SC 588; (2010) 6 SCALE 767; 2010 Cr.LJ
3844 (Para 15)

2. Hamida Vs Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474 (Para
15)

3. Monica Kumar Vs St. of U.P., (2008) 8 SCC
781 (Para 15)

4. Dhanlakshmi Vs R. Prasana Kumar, (1990)
Cr.LJ 320 (DB); AIR 1990 SC 494 (Para 16)

5. St. of Bih. Vs Murad Ali Khan, 1989 Cr LJ
1005; AIR 1989 SC 1 (Para 16)

Present application is for quashing the
charge-sheet as well as entire proceeding
of Criminal Case No. 603 of 2015, arising
out of Case Crime No. 945 of 2014, under
Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian
Penal Code, relating to Police StationDibai, District-Buland Shahar.

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

1. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed, by Smt. Ummeda
Fatima, against the State of U.P. and Smt.
Wasima Begum, with the prayer for quashing
the charge-sheet as well as entire proceeding
of Criminal Case No. 603 of 2015, arising out
of Case Crime No. 945 of 2014, under
Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal
Code, relating to Police Station-Dibai,
District-Buland Shahar.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant,
mentioned that allegations made against the
applicant, at the best, makes out a case of
civil liability as the applicant is alleged to
have get her name mutated after the death of
her husband, under Section 34 of the Land
Revenue Act, which become a bone of
contention
between
the
applicant
and
opposite party no. 2, who claims to be second
wife of the deceased. The applicant was
married with Sagar Ali, R/o Kesar Kalan of
Police Station-Dibai, District-Buland Shahar,
under
Muslim
rites
and
customs
on
28.10.2007. She was blessed by one female
child namely Zoya, aged about 5 years, from
their wedlock. She along with her daughter
and husband was living in her matrimonial
obligation happily but, was subjected to
cruelty with regard to dowry, hence, a
criminal case was -2- filed by her, against her
husband and in-laws. Unfortunately, Sagar
Ali, husband of the applicant, and his mother
Smt. Ikhlasi Begum were murdered by
unknown assailants on 22.06.2014 at Kesar
Kalan, District-Buland Shahar. But, because
of enmity and litigation, one Parvej @ Koki
got lodged criminal case against the applicant
and her family members on the basis of
frivolous allegations, on 22.06.2014 at 2.45
p.m., as Case Crime Number 299 of 2014,
under Sections-147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 115,
and 120-B, I.P.C. read with Section 7 of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, at Police
Station-Dibai, District-Buland Shahar.

3. After the death of Sagar Ali, the
applicant filed an application, in the Court
of Nayab Tehsildar- Dibai, District-Buland
1 All. Smt. Ummeda Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1121
Shahar, under Section 34 of the Land
Revenue Act, for getting her and her
daughter's name mutated at the place of
Sagar Ali, over his entire agricultural
property. This application was allowed vide
order dated 30.09.2014 and thereby, the
name of the applicant and her daughter was
got mutated in the revenue records.

4. The opposite party no. 2 Smt. Wasima
Begum, claiming to be second wife of Sagar
Ali, moved an application, before the Court of
Nayab
Tehsildar,
Dibai,
District-Buland
Shahar, on 07.10.2014, challenging the above
mutation order dated 30.09.2014, on the
ground, that she is legally wedded wife of Sagar
Ali, wherein, it was submitted that Shahana
Begum had also filed an original Suit No. 810
of 2014 against Sagar Ali, in the Court of
Tehsildar-Dibai,
District-
Buland
Shahar,
wherein, Smt. Ummeda Begum-the applicant,
had also filed her objection, hence, the present
applicant was fully aware of those facts even
then, she got mutated her name with wrong
contention.

5. The Court heard both sides and vide
order dated 07.10.2014 the mutation order
dated 30.09.2014 was set aside by the
Tehsildar-Dibai. -3-

6. The applicant had also filed a Suit No.
554 of 2014, against Smt. Shahana wife of Shri
Azmat Ali and Smt. Rehena wife of Shri
Khaliq Ahmad, in the Court of Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Buland Shahar for declaring
the will dated 12.03.2010, being said to be
executed by Sagar Ali in favour of Smt.
Shahana and Rehana as null and void. The
same is still pending. But, knowing all these
facts, the opposite party no. 2 got lodged First
Information Report on 30.07.2015, on frivolous
grounds.

7. The applicant preferred a Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 10874 of 2015, Smt.
Ummeda Fatima vs. State of U.P. and 2 others,
before this Hon'ble Court, for quashing the
impugned First Information Report as well as
stay of her arrest.

8. This Hon'ble Court, vide order dated
05.05.2015, disposed of the above Criminal
Writ Petition finally, with a direction for not
arresting the petitioner in pursuant of First
Information Report dated 07.11.2014, till
credible evidence is there or till the submission
of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.
The investigating officer, without making any
fair investigation, but recording statements of
Smt. Wasima Begum, Parvej @ Koki and
Ashfaq, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., submitted a
charge-sheet against the applicant in the Court
of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buland
Shahar, for offenses punishable under Sections
420, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code,
whereupon, cognizance was taken vide order
dated 11.09.2015, following issuance of
summon against the applicant, in above
criminal case. This was under abuse of process
of law. The applicant, being wife of Sagar Ali,
and Zoya Fatima, being daughter of Sagar Ali,
were entitled to inherit the property of Sagar Ali
after death of Sagar Ali and mere filing an
application, in the Court of Tehsildar, Dibai,
under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, will
not amount to an offence of cheating or forgery.
More so, matter is still subjudice before the
Court of Tehsildar Dibai, -4- Buland Shahar,
and final order is yet to be passed by the
Tehsildar. Hence, this registration of case crime
number was nothing but, a malafide action.
Hence, this application, with above prayer.

9. Learned A.G.A. argued that the
First Information Report of Case Crime
Number 495 of 2014, under Sections-420,
467 and 468 I.P.C. was presented by the
opposite party no. 2 at Police Station-Dibai,
District-Buland Shahar, with the allegation
of playing fraud to usurp the entire property
1122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Sagar Ali, husband of the informant.
Matter was under investigation, when a
proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was
filed for quashing the said First Information
Report, but, a Division Bench of this
Hon'ble Court, in above proceedings under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., did not grant relief,
prayed for, rather, held that prima-facie
case has been made out for registration of
case
crime
number.
Statements
of
witnesses were got written under Section
161 Cr.P.C.; documentary evidence were
also taken and investigation resulted in
logical conclusion for filing of police report
under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. as chargesheet
number
126
of
2015
dated
25.05.2015, for the offences punishable, as
above. Judicial Magistrate, took cognizance
over it on 11.09.2015. Nothing under
misuse of process of law is there.

10. Learned counsel for the informant
vehemently argued that Smt. Ummeda
Fatima was first wife of Sagar Ali. But, she
tortured Sagar Ali, with intention to grab
his entire property. She and her family
members pressurized Sagar Ali to part with
his agricultural land. False and frivolous
cases were filed by them, against Sagar Ali
and his mother Ikhlasi Begum. Sagar Ali
did not concede their illegal demand,
rather, he made several complaints against
Smt.
Ummeda
Begum,
before
the
concerned police station and administrative
authorities. Ultimately, Smt. Ummeda
Begum left matrimonial house of Sagar Ali.
Police and administrative authorities did
not act upon the complaint made by Sagar
Ali, resulting murder of Sagar Ali and his
mother Smt. Ikhlasi Begum, by Smt.
Ummeda Begum and her parents. It was a
gruesome -5- murder, in broad day light, on
22.06.2014 in full public view. This
offence of murder was witnessed by Parvej
@ Koki S/o Ashfaq and many other
persons,
present
on
the
spot.
First
Information Report of Case Crime Number
299 of 2014 under Sections-147, 148, 149,
307, 302, 115, 120-B I.P.C. read with
Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act, was got registered at Police StationDibai, upon the report of Parvej @ Koki
against Smt. Ummeda Fatima and others.

11. In the statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. Smt. Ummeda Fatima
has admitted that since Sagar Ali had
contracted second marriage, therefore, this
murder was to happen and for this, she felt
no remorse over his murder. Smt. Ummeda
Fatima, remained in prison till her release
on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 30364 of 2014, Smt. Ummeeda Begum
@ Ummeeda Fatima Vs. State Of U.P.,
vide order dated 16.09.2014 by this Hon'ble
Court. But, during this confinement an
application dated 14.08.2014 was moved
by Smt. Ummeda Fatima, through his
counsel in the Court of Nayab Tehsildar,
Dibai, District-Buland Shahar for getting
her name mutated over the agricultural land
of Sagar Ali and his mother Smt. Ikhlasi
Begum. Which was registered as Mutation
Case No. 663 of 2014 Smt. Ummeda
Fatima vs. Ikhlasi Begum, mutation case
No. 664 of 2014 Smt. Ummeda vs. Sagar
Ali, under Section 34 of the Land Revenue
Act. Smt. Ummeda Fatima claimed herself
and her daughter to be only survivor and
successor of deceased Sagar Ali and his
mother Ikhlasi Begum. Whereas, she was
fully aware that being murderer of her
husband and mother-in-law, she was
debarred from being their successor. She
deliberately and knowingly made false
averment on oath, before the above
Revenue Court, on 29.09.2014, in above
mutation proceedings, that she, along with
her daughter Zoya, are only legal heirs of
Sagar Ali and his mother Ikhlasi Begum,
1 All. Smt. Ummeda Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1123
and
thereby,
she
got
prepared
the
application and documents under fraud and
by this fraud, she got mutated her and her
daughter's name against the properties of
deceased Sagar ali and his mother Ikhlasi -
6- Begum.

12. Smt. Wasima Begam, being
legally wedded wife of Sagar Ali, along
with her daughter Sumera, borned on
01.9.2013 from wedlock of deceased Sagar
Ali, were entitled to succeed the estate of
her deceased husband Sagar Ali and her
mother Ikhlasi Begum. She moved, an
application, for cancellation of mutation
order dated 30.09.2014, before the Revenue
Court of Tehsildar-Dibai and thereupon,
the mutation order was got cancelled and
for this fraud, present Case Crime number
was got registered; charge-sheet has been
filed and this was on the basis of evidence
collected during investigation and as such
there is no abuse of process of law, hence
this application be dismissed.

13. Admitted fact is that Smt.
Ummeda Fatima was legally wedded wife
of Sagar Ali. She was blessed with a
daughter Zoya. There was matrimonial
discard between Ummeda Fatima and
Sagar Ali, for which, criminal cases were
pending. Sagar Ali, was got married with
Smt. Waseema Begum who was blessed
with a daughter from their wedlock. Civil
Suits regarding agricultural land of Sagar
Ali and his mother Smt. Ikhlasi Begum,
with regard to disputed "will", said to be
executed by Sagar Ali, is pending before
the competent Civil Court of Buland
Shahar. Sagar Ali and his mother Smt.
Ikhlasi
Begum
were
murdered
on
22.06.2014, for which Case Crime Number
299 of 2014 under Sections-147, 148, 149,
307, 302, 115, 120-B, I.P.C. read with
section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment
Act, was got registered at Police StationDibai, District-Buland Shahar by Parvej@
Koki, wherein, Smt. Ummeda Fatima, her
father, her brother and one relative Shahnaz
S/o Aabad were accused. This case crime
number caused arrest of Smt. Ummeda
Fatima, who was enlarged on bail in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30364
of 2014, vide order dated 16.09.2014. A
Mutation application, under Section 34 of
the Land Revenue Act, for mutation at the
name of Sagar Ali as mutation case no. 663
of 2014 -7- and at the name of Smt. Ikhlasi
Begum, in Mutation Case No. 664 of 2014
was filed by Smt. Ummeda Fatima as
Ummeda Fatima vs. Ikhlasi Begum and
Ummeda Fatima vs. Sagar Ali. In both of
these cases Smt. Ummeda Begum claimed
herself to be successor along with her
daughter Zoya for the property of late
Sagar Ali and late Smt. Ikhlasi Begum. She
has claimed herself and her daughter to be
only survivor and successor with no other
inheritor. Whereas, in many other previous
litigations it was fully in the knowledge of
Smt. Ummeda Fatima that Sagar Ali was
married with Wasima Begum, who was
blessed with one female child. Even
knowing this fact mutation application was
moved
with
incorrect
affidavit
and
incorrect application of documents. In oral
statements too, the same contention was
made and on the basis of these forged and
fabricated evidence, the impugned order of
mutation was passed which was challenged
by Smt. Wasima Begum and ultimately,
mutation order was cancelled. Thereafter,
mutation was entered, by adding name of
Wasima Begum and her daughter too.
Though, there is legal bar under the Land
Revenue
Act,
subsequently,
in
U.P.
Revenue Code Section 114 (c) provides
that " A person who commits murder of a
[Bhumidhar, asami or government lessee],
or abates the commission of such murder,
1124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
shall be disqualified from inheriting the
interest of the deceased in any holding".
But, it is a question to be seen by the
competent Revenue Authority. Hence, this
First Information Report was challenged
before this Court and a request was made
for quashing the First Information Report
dated 07.11.2014 registered as Case Crime
Number 495 of 2014, under Sections-420,
467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station-Dibai,
District-Buland Shahar, and it was argued
before this Court that question in the matter
appeared to be a reference of property in
question that had been left over by Sagar
Ali and his mother Smt. Ikhlasi Begum,
but, the Division Bench of this Court in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10874 of
2015 Smt. Ummeda Fatima vs. State of
U.P. and 2 other had held that ;

"......We have the occasion to persue the
arguments that has been so -8- advanced o
behalf of the parties before us and FIR, prima
facie discloses cognizable offence, as such
request for quashing of the FIR is turned
down"........

Meaning thereby, prima facie case was
disclosed for cognizable offence and it was not
a ground for quashing of the First Information
Report. Investigation has resulted submission of
charge-sheet over which cognizance has been
taken. Offence of moving application, with
false and fictitious contention, claiming herself
to be sole survivor along with her minor
daughter over the property of late Sagar Ali and
his mother Smt. Ikhlasi Begum, and thereafter,
fabricating oral and documentary evidence for it
and getting name mutated, knowing the legal
situation of debar of inheritance and conviction
in that criminal case of murder, prima facie,
makes out offences for which chargesheet has
been filed.

14. This court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not
expected to meticulously analyses the facts
and evidence as it is matter of trial to be
seen during trial.

15. 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 -
9- 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
1 All. Siemens Ltd. Vs. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.
1125
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".

16. 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 -10- would
not embark upon an enquiry whether the
allegations in the complaint are likely to be
established by evidence or not".

17. Meaning thereby, exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as
above. This court is not to make any
comment on factual matrix because the
same remains within the domain of trial
court.

18.
Accordingly,
there
remains
nothing
for
any
indulgence
in
this
proceeding. The prayer for quashing the
impugned order as well as proceeding of
the aforesaid complaint case is refused and
the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby
dismissed.
----------
(2021)01ILR A1125
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.01.2021

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

Arbitration & Concilla. Appl. U/S 11(4) No. 5 of
2019

Siemens Ltd. ...Applicant
Versus
Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. &
Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, Sri Anurag Khanna,
Sri Shivank Diddi

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Sri Kapil Dev Singh Rathore, Sri Girish
Chand Sinha, Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh, Sri
Mayank Sinha, Sri Mayank Singh, Sri
Abhishek Srivastava

Civil
Law-Application
filed
seeking
appointment of an independent arbitrator
-a written agreement exist containing an
arbitration clause-consent recorded in the
order of which review filed- Respondent
did not give up its preliminary objectionconsent recorded is not true reflection of
record of proceeding that existed before
the court- mistake crept in while passing
the impugned order owing to three other