# (U/s 482 CR.P.C.) Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 94
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-12-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 50297 of 2014
- **Bench:** Harsh Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-s-482-cr-p-c-raj-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43241
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Cr.P.C.-Section
482-Chargesheet
challenged -on ground of process of courtas the applicant again married with
prosecutist on achieving age of majorityadmittedly when occurrence took placeshe was only 15 1⁄2 years old girlsubsequent marriage will not undue the
offence-already
committed-petitioner
himself guilty for abusing the process of
Court-application rejected.
Held: Para-12
In view of the discussions made above, I
find
that
the
applicant
himself
is
committing abuse of process of Court and
has failed to show that any abuse of
process of Court has been caused by
submission of charge sheet. There is no
sufficient ground requiring exercise of
inherent power by this Court under section
482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet
in order to prevent abuse of process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. The application is devoid of merits
and is liable to be dismissed.
Case Law discussed:
JT 2010 (6) SC 588:(2010) 6 SCALE 767:2010
Cr.L.J. 3844; (2008) 1 SCC 474; (2008) 8 SCC

## Text

94
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
particularly in error in holding that the
Appellant had an opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses or that he had not
availed of the said opportunity when the
witnesses were examined at the stage of
proceedings under Chapter XV of the
Code. The High Court, it is obvious, has
failed to approach the issue from the
correct perspective while passing the
impugned order.
24. In the result we allow this appeal
with costs Assessed at Rs.50,000/-, set
aside the order passed by the High Court
and restore that passed by the Sessions
Judge. The costs shall be deposited by
Respondent No. 2-company in the SCBA
Lawyers' Welfare Fund within two weeks
of the pronouncement of this order."
19. On a consideration of the above
case laws and the principles laid down
therein, the order impugned does not
appear to be correct order and the trial
court has proceeded to commit illegality
in framing the charge without recording
evidence under Section 244 (1) Cr.P.C.
The order framing charge, therefore,
cannot be sustained in law.
20. The petition is accordingly
allowed. The order dated 11.11.2014 is
hereby set aside and the matter is remitted
to the trial court to proceed considering
the principles laid down hereinabove.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.12.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE HARSH KUMAR, J.
Criminal Misc. Application No. 50297 of
2014
(U/s 482 CR.P.C.)
Raj Kumar
...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rajeev Trivedi
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.
Cr.P.C.-Section
482-Chargesheet
challenged -on ground of process of courtas the applicant again married with
prosecutist on achieving age of majorityadmittedly when occurrence took placeshe was only 15 1⁄2 years old girlsubsequent marriage will not undue the
offence-already
committed-petitioner
himself guilty for abusing the process of
Court-application rejected.
Held: Para-12
In view of the discussions made above, I
find
that
the
applicant
himself
is
committing abuse of process of Court and
has failed to show that any abuse of
process of Court has been caused by
submission of charge sheet. There is no
sufficient ground requiring exercise of
inherent power by this Court under section
482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet
in order to prevent abuse of process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. The application is devoid of merits
and is liable to be dismissed.
Case Law discussed:
JT 2010 (6) SC 588:(2010) 6 SCALE 767:2010
Cr.L.J. 3844; (2008) 1 SCC 474; (2008) 8 SCC
781.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J.)
1. Heard Sri Rajeev Trivedi, learned
counsel for the applicant and learned
AGA for the State.
2. The application has been moved
under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
the charge sheet in case crime no.193 of
2012, under sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B
1 All] Raj Kumar Vs. State of & Anr.
95
IPC on the basis of which, S.T. No.167 of
2013
is
pending
before
Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Kanpur
Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant
contended that the incident is alleged to
be dated 28.7.2011 of which F.I.R. has
been lodged with inordinate delay on
13.6.2012 and charge sheet has been filed,
upon which the case has been committed
to sessions and S.T. No.167 of 2013 is
pending against the applicant and other
co-accused; that the prosecutrix/victim
had gone with the applicant with her own
sweet will and made marriage with him;
that subsequently on attaining majority on
1.2.2014 the victim has again made
marriage with the applicant; that the
applicant has been granted bail and in the
circumstances, the charge sheet is liable
to be quashed, as no fruitful purpose is
likely to be achieved by prosecuting the
case when the victim/prosecutrix has
made marriage with the applicant.
4. Learned AGA opposed and
contended
that
undisputedly
the
prosecutrix was minor at the time of
incident and the alleged marriage with
minor is nullity and may not be
considered to be a marriage in the eye of
law;
that
applicant
is
guilty
for
committing rape with minor girl of 15
years; that the date of birth of prosecutrix
is 1.2.1996 as stated by her and also
mentioned in her High School Certificate;
that by obtaining marriage certificate
subsequent to 1.2.2014, (after attaining
majority by the prosecutrix) the crime
committed during her minority under
section 376 IPC may not be undone; that
the charge sheet was submitted long back
upon which the cognizance was taken on
1.12.2012 and there is no justification for
moving this application for quashing of
charge sheet after a span of around two
years; that delay in lodging of F.I.R. may
not be material in cases under section 376
IPC; that the applicant accused is an
influential person and F.I.R. could be
lodged only through order of Magistrate
upon application under section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C.; that there is no deliberate delay
in lodging F.I.R.;that the applicant and
co-accused are habitual of moving one
writ after dismissal of another and after
refusal by this Court to quash the F.I.R.,
in Writ Petition No.9606 of 2012 filed by
applicant, the applicant has moved this
application for quashing the charge sheet
and is committing abuse of process of
Court; that the applicant has not come
with clean hands and has moved this
application with mala fide intention and
false allegations; that there is no sufficient
ground for quashing of charge sheet and
exercising of inherent powers by this
Court to prevent any abuse of process of
court or to secure the ends of justice.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel
for the parties and perusal of record, I find
that undisputedly the occurrence took
place on 28.7.2011 when the prosecutrix
was allegedly kidnapped by applicant and
his associates. Undisputedly the date of
birth of prosecutrix is 1.2.1996 as per
High
School Certificate annexed as
annexure no.10 and so she was aged about
15 years at the time of incident. The
applicant claimed to have obtained
agreement from the minor prosecutrix on
1.9.2011 (Annexure No.2) mentioning
therein of living as husband and wife
since last one year and mentioning the age
of prosecutrix as 19 years. The applicant
has also filed copy of marriage certificate
of Arya Samaj Chowk, Prayag dated
13.2.2014
between
applicant
and
96
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prosecutrix while the marriage certificate
issued by the Office of the Registrar of
Hindu
Marriage
Chail,
District
Kaushambi (Annexure No.10) contains
that marriage has been solemnized on
7.2.2014 and having been registered on
21.2.2014
which
facts
are
self
contradictory.Undisputedly,
the
prosecutrix attained the age of majority
i.e. 18 years on 1.2.2014 and by
solemnization marriage after attaining
majority, the offence committed earlier
may not be undone. The applicant has
failed to disclose as to what abuse of
process is likely to be caused by
submission of charge sheet upon which
cognizance has been taken and case has
been committed to sessions about two
years back.
6. Undisputedly the prayer made by
applicant thourgh Writ Petition No.9606
of 2012 for quashing the F.I.R. of this
case, has been turned down by Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated
14.8.2012. Hence, present application
with prayer for quashing the charge sheet
is nothing but abuse of process of Court
by the applicant as the applicant is
obstructing the prosecution to proceed
and committing abuse of process of
Court.
7. It is settled principle of law that
inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
should be exercised very sparingly and
carefully only to prevent commission of
any abuse of Court.
8. In this respect following case laws
are necessary to be referred:-
9. In the case of State of Andhra
Pradesh V. Gourishetty Mahesh, JT 2010
(6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767:2010
Cr.LJ 3844, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held 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".
10. In the case of Hamida V. Rashid,
(2008) 1 SCC 474, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held 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 are often 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."
11. In the case of Monica Kumar V.
State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "
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."
12. In view of the discussions made
above, I find that the applicant himself is
committing abuse of process of Court and
has failed to show that any abuse of
process of Court has been caused by
submission of charge sheet. There is no
sufficient ground requiring exercise of
inherent power by this Court under
section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the
charge sheet in order to prevent abuse of
1 All] Soniya Vs. State of & Ors.
97
process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. The application
is devoid of merits and is liable to be
dismissed.
13. The application is dismissed,
accordingly.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52933 of 2014
Soniya
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kamlesh Shukla, Sri Prashant Shukla
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Compassionate
Appointment-claim
by
married daughter of deceased employeeon allegations since 2002 she along with
her husband residing with deceased
employee-who had lost his job due to
fire-without any supporting documentshusband
being
hale
and
heartypetitioner can not be treated dependent
of her deceased-certainly dependents
married daughter can not be excludedbut every pleadings must be supported
by
documents-in
absence
thereofappointment can not be claimed as a
matter of right.
Held: Para-18 & 19
18. Thus, from the careful reading of
these reports, it is found that the
direction was given therein in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of those
cases and the Court was of the opinion
that the dependent daughters cannot be
excluded merely because of their marital
status.
19. As has been discussed above, one
dependent
family
member
of
the
deceased
employee
is
entitled
for
compassionate
appointment.
The
petitioner has failed to establish that she
was
dependent
upon
the
deceased
employee, as admittedly her husband is
alive and he is a hail and hearty person,
it cannot be accepted that the petitioner
was fully dependent upon the deceased
employee at the time of his death.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1979 SC 1868; LAWS(BOM)-2014-8-68;
ILR 1992 KARNATAKA 3416; 2005 (104) FLR
271.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.)
1. Heard Sri Kamlesh Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel.
2. Short controversy raised in the
present writ petition is as to whether the
petitioner being a married daughter of the
deceased employee has a right for
consideration
for
appointment
on
compassionate ground. The petitioner is
only daughter of her parents and her case
is that she is unemployed and was fully
dependent upon her father at the time of
his death. Her mother i.e. wife of the
deceased employee moved an application
on 22.2.2012 before the Principal/Chief
Superintendent, S.N. Medical College and
Hospital, Agra for providing employment
to her daughter i.e. petitioner. Reminders
were sent by the petitioner and her mother
but no decision has been taken and hence
this writ petition.
3. In the supplementary affidavit
filed on 17.10.2014, the petitioner sought
to submit that she alongwith her husband