# Sugreev Nishad & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1698
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-11
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 45474 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sugreev-nishad-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45044
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482 - High Court in exercise of inherent
1700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
not expected to embark upon the factual
matrix because the same is question
before trial court to be seen during trialPrayer for quashing refused-For a period
of four weeks or till the disposal of the
application for grant of bail whichever is
earlier, no coercive action shall be taken
against the applicants. (Para 6 & 11)

Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C
disposed of. (E-3)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. Santarpal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1699
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".

8. 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 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. The prayer for quashing
summoning order as well as proceeding of
the aforesaid criminal case is refused.

11. However, in the interest of
justice, it is provided that if the applicants
appear and surrender before the court
below within four weeks from today and
apply for bail, then the bail application of
the applicants be considered and decided
in view of the settled law laid by this
Court in the case of Amrawati and
another Vs. State of U.P. reported in
2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra
Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P

12. For a period of four weeks from
today or till the disposal of the application for
grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive
action shall be taken against the applicants.

13. However, in case, the applicants
do not appear before the Court below
within the aforesaid period, coercive
action shall be taken against them.

14. With the aforesaid directions, this
application is finally disposed of.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1698

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 45474 of 2019

Sugreev Nishad & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Mahboob Ahmad, Zia Qadir

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

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482 - High Court in exercise of inherent
1700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
not expected to embark upon the factual
matrix because the same is question
before trial court to be seen during trialPrayer for quashing refused-For a period
of four weeks or till the disposal of the
application for grant of bail whichever is
earlier, no coercive action shall be taken
against the applicants. (Para 6 & 11)

Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C
disposed of. (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. State, 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

7. Amrawati & anr Vs. St. of U.P. 2004 (57)
ALR 290

8. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. St. of U.P.
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)

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

1. The applicants, by means of this
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court with prayer to quash the
impugned
summoning
order
dated
13.09.2017,
bailable
warrant
dated
30.07.2018 and 22.10.2019, issued by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist,
Ballia as well as entire proceeding of
Complaint Case No. 345 of 2013 (Pramila
Devi Vs. Sugreev Nishad and others),
pending in the court of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Ballia, under
Section 392 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali
Rasra, District Ballia.

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

3. Learned counsel for applicants
argued that applicant no. 2 is father of
applicant no. 1. As per prosecution itself,
there
had
been
enmity
regarding
preparation of Visa and this was the reason
that this malicious prosecution. No such
occurrence ever occurred. Police report of
this fact is there that no such occurrence
has
occurred,
even
then,
impugned
summoning order has been passed. Hence,
this application with above prayer.

4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently
opposed
the
application
with
this
contention that complaint is reiterated in
statement under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C.. Prima facie, there was sufficient
evidence for passing of summoning order.

5. From the perusal of material
brought on record, it is apparent that an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was moved with this contention that on
09.11.2013, complainant along with her
jethani Sushila Devi and Gulabchandra
was on her way to her home. At about 2.30
P.M.
after
getting
withdrawal
of
Rs.2,00,000/- from Union Bank Siuri
Amhat, Sugreev Nishad, his father Vikram
Nishad along with two other unknown
apprehended and snatched pocket having
Rs.2,00,000/- kept in it. On hue and cry,
many persons rushed, but they could not
be apprehended. Matter was reported at
police station. This contention has been
reiterated in statement recorded under
1 All. Sugreev Nishad & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1701
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and on the
basis of evidence, collected by Magistrate
in its enquiry, impugned summoning order
for offence punishable under Section 392
I.P.C. was passed.

6. This Court in exercise of inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
not expected to embark upon the factual
matrix because the same is question before
trial court to be seen during trial.

7. Moreso, 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".

8. 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,
1702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. The prayer for quashing
summoning order as well as proceeding of
the aforesaid criminal case is refused.

11. However, in the interest of
justice, it is provided that if the
applicants appear and surrender before
the court below within four weeks from
today and apply for bail, then the bail
application
of
the
applicants
be
considered and decided in view of the
settled law laid by this Court in the case
of Amrawati and another Vs. State of
U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as
well as judgment passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ
322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh
Vs. State of U.P.

12. For a period of four weeks from
today or till the disposal of the application
for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no
coercive action shall be taken against the
applicants.

13. However, in case, the applicants
do not appear before the Court below
within the aforesaid period, coercive
action shall be taken against them.

14. With the aforesaid directions, this
application is finally disposed of.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1701

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr. P.C. No. 45587 of 2019

Smt. Mamta Rani ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Kuldeep Kumar

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

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
482- Sections 93, 418 and 494 IPC -
Bigamy-Accused persons got married
during pendency of suit for dissolution of
marriage ,u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, and persistence of earlier marriageComplaint
filed
-Magistrate
passed
summoning
order
after
conducting
inquiry u/s 200 / 2002 of Cr.Pc-Well
within law and passed on the basis of
evidence, collected by the Magistrate,
during enquiry- High Court, in exercise of
inherent power, under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon
of factual aspect because the same is a
question to be gone into, during course of
trial, by the Trial court. (Para 4, 5 & 7)

Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C
rejected. (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