# State of U.P. & Anr v. S.M. College, Chandausi & Anr - **Citation:** Special Appeal Defective No. 24 of 2020 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2018-09-27 - **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 24 of 2020 - **Bench:** Biswanath Somadder, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-anr-v-s-m-college-chandausi-anr-46219 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote - Allahabad High Court Rules: Chapter V: Rule 14(1) - There is a difference between "part heard"/"tied up" matters and nominated/specially assigned matters. If a nominated/specially assigned matter is released by a Bench - not being a "tied up" or a "part heard" case - the Registry ordinarily should place it before the Hon'ble, The Chief Justice, for an appropriate order of fresh assignment or a direction. The Court proposed to hear out the matter on its merit after receiving appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice. (E-4) ## Text 3-5 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. S.M. College, Chandausi & Anr. 1775 same has been passed considering all the material evidence on record. 13. The Apex Court in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, summarized come categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings :- (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 14. The Apex Court in State of Bihar and another vs. P.P. Sharma I.A.S. and another, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192, has observed that Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the appreciation of evidence is the function of the criminal courts. High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of investigation and trial provided under the law. 15. The Apex Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. vs. Mohd. Shararful Haque and another, 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, has observed that when a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. Conclusion 16. Considering the nature of allegations, material available on record and findings recorded by the learned Magistrate, the present case does not fall in the category recognized by the Apex Court, where this Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceeding at the initial stage. It is well settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly only to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, when there is a patent error or gross injustice. On accepting the facts of the present case as mentioned in the complaint, as true, taking the same in their entirety, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicants. 17. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the arguments so advanced on behalf of applicants. The impugned order dated 27.09.2018 does not suffer from any illegality and there is no abuse of the process of law. The application lacks merit, it is accordingly dismissed. ---------- (2020)03-05ILR A1775 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.02.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Special Appeal Defective No. 24 of 2020 State of U.P. & Anr. ...Appellants Versus S.M. College, Chandausi & Anr. ...Respondents 1776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Counsel for the Appellants: Archana Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Gautam Baghel A. Allocation of Work, Roster and Benches - Allahabad High Court Rules: Chapter V: Rule 14(1) - There is a difference between "part heard"/"tied up" matters and nominated/specially assigned matters. If a nominated/specially assigned matter is released by a Bench - not being a "tied up" or a "part heard" case - the Registry ordinarily should place it before the Hon'ble, The Chief Justice, for an appropriate order of fresh assignment or a direction. The Court proposed to hear out the matter on its merit after receiving appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice. (E-4) (Delivered by Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder, J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. On 20th January, 2020, the following order was passed:- "The records reveal that the Hon'ble, The Chief Justice, nominated / assigned Special Appeal Defective No.24 of 2020 (State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Department of Higher Education Government of U.P. Lucknow and another v. S.M. College, Chadausi through its Secretary, Shantanu Kumar & another) to be listed before a Bench presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bala Krishna Narayana, as per order dated 16th January, 2020. However, the office report dated 20th January, 2020, reads as follows:- "Reference Hon'ble Court's Order dt. 17/01/2020 and Hon'ble CJ's Order for the new roster w.e.f. 20/01/2020 and continuation of administrative orders dt. 16/12/13 regarding PH and TU cases. The case is put up for orders before Hon'ble regular court of the case dealing with the roster." The administrative order of the Hon'ble, The Chief Justice, dated 16th December, 2013 - which has been referred to in the office report dated 20th January, 2020 - reads as follows: "No pending case, civil or criminal, shall be treated as part heard or tied up in a Court after the commencement of a new roster. All pending cases shall be listed before the appropriate Bench dealing with such matters in accordance with the fresh roster, unless so ordered by the Chief Justice in a specific case hereafter." A plain reading of the administrative order of the Hon'ble, The Chief Justice dated 16th December, 2013, reveals that the same would be applicable only in respect of pending cases - civil or criminal- which have been treated as either "part heard" or "tied up" in a Court. This is neither a "part heard" matter nor a "tied up" matter. Rather, this is a matter which has been nominated / specially assigned by the Hon'ble, The Chief Justice, to be listed before a Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bala Krishna Narayana. In fact, "tied up" cases and "partly heard" cases have been clearly defined in Rule 14 (1) under Chapter V of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which reads as follows: "14. Tied up cases.-(1) A case partly heard by a Bench shall ordinarily be laid before the same Bench for disposal. A case in which a Bench has merely directed notice to issue to the opposite party or passed an ex parte order shall not be deemed to be a case partly heard by such Bench." 3-5 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Akbar Naim & Ors. 1777 The administrative order of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice dated 16th December, 2013, which has been relied on in the office report dated 20th January, 2020, as such, will not be applicable in the instant case. If a nominated / specially assigned matter is released by a Bench - not being a "tied up" or a "part heard" case - the Registry ordinarily should place it before the Hon'ble, The Chief Justice, for an appropriate order of fresh assignment or a direction from the Hon'ble, The Chief Justice, for the matter to be listed before the regular Bench. In this case, however, the matter has been placed before us by virtue of the office report dated 20th January, 2020, which does not refer to any such direction of the Hon'ble, The Chief Justice, consequent upon the order dated 17th January, 2020, passed by the Division Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bala Krishna Narayana. The Registry is therefore directed to place the matter before the Hon'ble, The Chief Justice for necessary order." 2. Consequent thereto, the matter was placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary order. 3. It appears that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, in His Lordship's administrative side, has passed the following order on 17th February, 2020:- "Lay/list before appropriate Court dealing with such matters." 4. Since this is the appropriate Court dealing with such matters, we now propose to hear out the matter on its merit. In Re.: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2020 Special Appeal Defective No. 24 of 2020 State of U.P. & Anr. ....Appellants Versus S.M. College, Chandausi & Anr. .....Respondents Counsel for Appellants: Archana Singh Counsel for Respondents: Gautam Baghel (Delivered by Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder, J. & Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. After considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the application for condonation of delay, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown to explain the delay in filing of the appeal and as such, the delay is condoned. The application for condonation of delay is accordingly allowed. 2. Office is directed to allot regular number to this appeal and list it on 24th February, 2020, under the same heading. ---------- (2020)03-05ILR A1777 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 29.01.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE GOVIND MATHUR, C.J. THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. Special Appeal No. 397 of 2010 State of U.P. & Anr. ...Appellant Versus Akbar Naim & Ors. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: