# Umesh Chandra Saxena v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 513
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-04-20
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 5396 of 2006
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/umesh-chandra-saxena-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45363
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed for quashing the case under
section 420, 218, 471 IPC- Condition for
exercise of power to prevent an abuse of
process of court or to secure the ends of justice
- only in case basic ingredients of offences
alleged are at together absent - Power shall not
be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution.

State of framing of charge :- Defence of
accused cannot be considered at this stage.
Various documents placed before the court in
defence by the accused cannot be examined the
same.

Application lacks merit and dismissed. (E2)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,827 of 40,225. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39827 for what follows._

10 All. Umesh Chandra Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
513
doubted that on certain aspects the facts in
both cases are overlapping and some
aspects are common. If one aspect is true in
one matter then second cannot continue and
second case will stand belied. But the
question is whether a case from one Court
to another can be transferred on an
application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
or such a request should be made by filing
application under Section 407 CrPC. There
was one option, whereby this Court would
have permitted applicants of CrMA-2 to
move an application under Section 407
CrPC requesting for transfer of case to
another district where one case is already
pending and thereafter request could have
been made to concerned District Judge to
direct that both cases should be heard by
same Court. This option would take further
time and only result in multiplying
litigation. These matters are pending for
almost 15-17 years. Power under Section
482 CrPC is wide enough and mere
mention or non mention of a provision
cannot deprive a Court to exercise powers
which is otherwise vested in it, even if it is
not mentioned by applicants. In given facts
and circumstances, Court can exercise a
power if it is vested with it.

24. In these facts and circumstances,
exercising powers under Section 482
CrPC read with Section 407 CrPC, I allow
CrMA-2 i.e. Application under Section
482 CrPC No.2444 of 2005 and transfer
Case No.3187 of 2004 (State of U.P. vs.
Lokesh
Kumar
Singhal
and
others)
pending in Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Faizabad to Court of 1st
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Meerut with a further direction that Case
No.158/11 of 2003 pending in the Court of
1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Meerut shall be heard together with
transferred case.

25. In the result, CrMA-1 is hereby
dismissed and CrMA-2 is allowed in the
manner as aforesaid.
----------
(2020)10ILR A513
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5396 of 2006

Umesh Chandra Saxena ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Raj Kumar Khanna

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed for quashing the case under
section 420, 218, 471 IPC- Condition for
exercise of power to prevent an abuse of
process of court or to secure the ends of justice
- only in case basic ingredients of offences
alleged are at together absent - Power shall not
be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution.

State of framing of charge :- Defence of
accused cannot be considered at this stage.
Various documents placed before the court in
defence by the accused cannot be examined the
same.

Application lacks merit and dismissed. (E2)

List of Cases cited:-

1. St. of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005)
1 SCC 568.

2. Mohammed Ibrahim Vs St.of Bihar, (2009) 8
SCC.
514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Md. Allauddin Khan Vs The St. of Bihar &
ors., (2019) 6 SCC 107.

4. Criminal Appeal No.175 of 2020 (St. of M.P.
Vs Yogendra Singh Jadaun & anr.)

5. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors., 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335.

6. Google India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Visakha Industries &
ors., AIR 2020 SC 350.

7. Jeffrey J. Diermeier & ors. Vs St. of W.B. &
ors. , (2010) 6 SCC 243.

8. Som Mittal Vs St. of Kar., (2008) 3 SCC 753.

9. Lakshman Vs St. of Kar. & ors., (2019) 9 SCC
677.

10. Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu & ors. Vs St. of
A.P. & ors., AIR 2019 SC 3913.

11. Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & ors. Vs
Mohd. Sharaful Haque & ors., (2005) 1 SCC
122.

12. M.A.A. Annamalai Vs St. of Karn. & ors.,
(2010) 8 SCC 524,

13. Sharda Prasad Sinha Vs St.of Bihar, AIR
1977 SC 1754.

14.
Nagawwa
Vs
Veeranna
Shivalingappa
Konjalgi & ors., 1976 AIR 1976 SC 1947.

15. Rakhi Mishra Vs St. of Bihar & ors., (2017)
16 SCC 772.

16. Sonu Gupta Vs Deepak Gupta & ors., (2015)
3 SC 424.

17. Roshni Chopra and others Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., (2019) 7 Scale 152.

18. Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports Vs
Roshanlal Agarwal & ors., (2003) 4 SCC 139.

19. U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs Mohan
Meaking Ltd. & ors., (2000) 3 SCC 745.

20. Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs St. of W.B. (2001)
SCC 722.
21. Nupur Talwar Vs C.B.I. & ors., (2012) 11
SCC 465.

22. Parbatbhai Aahir & ors. Vs St. of Guj. & ors.,
(2017) 9 SCC 641.

23. Arun Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. passed in
Criminal Appeal no.250 of 2020 (arising out of
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5224 of 2017).

24. Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration & anr.
(1996) 9 SCC 766.

25. Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal
Affairs, West Bengal Vs Anil Kumar Bhunja &
ors. (1979) 4 SCC 274.

26. St. of Bihar Vs Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC
39.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. This is an application under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") filed
by sole applicant Umesh Chandra Saxena
with a prayer to quash Case No.101 of
2006 (Crime No.726 of 2004), under
Sections 420, 218, 471 IPC, Police Station
Bhagatpur, District Moradabad, pending in
the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Thakurdwara, Moradabad.

2. Facts in brief, as disclosed in the
application, are that accused-applicant was
appointed as Assistant Teacher in Prathmik
Vidyalaya Bhadgawan, District Moradabad
on 29.10.1988. Applicant was transferred
from time to time. Vide order dated
27.01.2004 passed by Assistant Basic
Education Officer (hereinafter referred to
as "ABEO") Bhagatpur Tanda, District
Moradabad, applicant while working at
Primary School Chatarpur Nayak was
directed to join Primary School Bhagatpur
Tanda on 28.01.2004. On 13.02.2004,
ABEO wrote a letter to applicant seeking
details of distribution of mid-day meals and
10 All. Umesh Chandra Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
515
scholarship to the students of Primary
School Bhagatpur Tanda. Said enquiry was
made probably on some complaint made by
parents
of
students
to
the
District
Magistrate,
Moradabad
against
Gram
Pradhan of Village Bhagatpur Tanda
alleging
about
the
irregularities
in
distribution of scholarship and mid day
meal to the students in the year 2003-04. A
fact finding enquiry was conducted by Sri
A.K.
Singh,
District
Social
Welfare
Officer, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to
as "DSWO") and Sri M.K. Kandpal,
District Backward Class Welfare Officer,
Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as
"DBCWO"). They submitted report dated
29.07.2004 holding Sri Babban Ali, Gram
Pradhan, Shiv Autar, Gram Panchayat
Vikas Adhikari and Sri Mahesh Kumar
Saxena, Headmaster of School, guilty of
embezzlement of government revenue and
recommended recovery of Rs.1800/- and
also departmental enquiry against Gram
Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari
and Headmaster of School.

3. Thereafter, a First Information
Report (hereinafter referred to as "FIR")
was registered as Case Crime No.726 of
2004 dated 20.10.2004, under Sections 420,
409 IPC on a written report of Sri A.K.
Singh, DSWO and Sri M.K. Kandpal,
DBCWO dated 29.07.2004. The FIR stated
that complaint was related to distribution of
scholarship meant for students of minority
class. On the demand raised by Primary
School, Bhagatpur Tanda, a sum of
Rs.1,15,500/- as scholarship was credited
to the account of Gram Panchayat meant
for 385 students in the financial year 200304. Aforesaid information was received
from the department of Minority Welfare.
Said figure does not match with figure
given in the complaint, inasmuch as, 381
students were said to have been given
scholarship as mentioned at point no.3 of
the complaint. On comparison, it was found
that though date of birth of children of one
parent was different but he was placed in
one class. Point No.4 of the complaint
stated that Uzama baby, daughter of Zille
Hasan, was shown studying in Class-IV for
several years but in the year of enquiry, her
name was shown in Class-V. Her father
told that she used to go to school, off and
on. When girl was interrogated, she also
admitted about the factum of going to
school sometimes but could not tell even
name of Teachers or the fellow students.
Names of students in Point No.5 of
complaint were shown in Primary School,
Bhagatpur Tanda and scholarship was
alleged to be given there. Their names were
not found enrolled in Ramawati Inter
College. Similarly with regard to Point
No.6, when enquiry was made about
Nafees Ahmed, it was told that he was
studying in Class-IV and since he was poor
in studies, his guardians sent him back to
lower class. This is illegal and scholarship
of Rs.300/- given to this student is liable to
be recovered. At Point No.7, there is a
student Gulam Mohammad aged about 1516 years who has been shown studying in
Class-V and scholarship was given to him.
In fact, he was not studying and engaged in
some profession and only for the purposes
of scholarship, his name was entered as a
student. Likewise, other students like
Yunus
Imammuddin
and
Sukhlal,
mentioned at serial nos.8 to 10 of the
complaint were shown to be admitted only
for the purposes of scholarship. Similar
complaints were mentioned at serial nos.12
and 13. Point No.14 concerned with the
irregularities regarding mid-day meal. In a
nutshell, it was found by Enquiry Officer
that at the time of disbursement of
scholarship, fake admissions in two schools
were made in connivance with Gram
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pradhan Babban Ali, Gram Panchayat
Vikas Adhikari Shiv Autar Verma and
Principal Mahesh Kumar Saxena who had
misused their authority and in connivance
with each other have embezzled public
government money which is required to be
recovered.

4. District Magistrate, Moradabad
issued a notice dated 08.10.2004 requiring
Gram Pradhan Sri Babban Ali, Gram
Panchayat Adhikari, Bhagatpur Tanda to
show
cause
why
his
financial
and
administrative powers be not withdrawn
since
he
has
committed
serious
irregularities in distribution of scholarship
to the students. District Panchayat Raj
Officer, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to
as "DPRO") also issued order for recovery
of Rs.1800/- from parents of the students
failing which it shall be recovered from the
concerned
Gram
Pradhan
or
Gram
Panchayat Vikas Adhikari or Teacher.

5. Gram Development Officer,
Bhagatpur
Tanda,
vide
letter
dated
17.11.2004, informed District Minority
Welfare Officer (hereinafter referred to as
"DMWO") that DPRO has sent a Bank
Draft of Rs.1800/- being amount of
scholarship recovered, for transmitting the
same.
Thereafter,
vide
order
dated
01.10.2014,
District
Basic
Education
Officer, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to
as "DBEO") placed Sri Mahesh Kumar
Saxena,
Headmaster,
Primary
School,
Bhagatpur Block, Bhagatpur Tanda under
suspension. However, Investigating Officer
(hereinafter referred to as "I.O.") colluded
with actual accused persons and in order to
exonerate them, in an illegal manner,
implicate applicant and also tried to arrest
applicant illegally by raiding his house at
midnight
on
03.01.2005
which
was
reported by applicant's wife to Senior
Superintendent
of
Police,
Moradabad
(hereinafter referred to as "SSP") vide
letter
dated
04.01.2005.
Later,
I.O.
submitted charge-sheet No.26 of 2005
dated 18.03.2005 arising from Case Crime
No.726 of 2004 dated 20.10.2004, under
Sections 420, 218, 471 IPC implicating
only the applicant for the alleged fictitious
and fraudulent distribution of scholarship
of Rs.1800/- to the students.

6. Magistrate has taken cognizance to
the charge-sheet and issued process, hence,
entire proceedings are challenged on the
ground that applicant has been falsely
implicated; there is no evidence against
him; everything was done earlier to the
joining of applicant; and, in the fact finding
enquiry conducted by department itself,
fault was found on the part of Gram
Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari
and Headmaster of School while I.O. after
taking money has falsely implicated
applicant, hence, entire proceedings against
applicant are malicious and liable to be set
aside.

7. Sri Raj Kumar Khanna, learned
counsel appearing for applicant has placed
reliance on a Supreme Court's decision in
State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi
2005 (1) SCC 568 and Mohammed
Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar 2009 (8) SCC
and urged that in order to implicate
applicant,
forged
and
manufactured
evidence has been adduced against him
and, therefore, entire proceedings are
malicious and are liable to be quashed.

8. Basically, contention of learned
counsel for applicant is that investigation
has been held wrongly and only to
implicate applicant; evidence has been
manufactured and, therefore, all these
factual aspects should be tried and
10 All. Umesh Chandra Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
517
examined by this Court in an application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the criminal
proceedings initiated against applicant
should be quashed.

9. "Whether there is any such scope
of enquiry/ investigation at this stage under
Section 482 Cr.P.C." is the moot question
which needs be considered.

10. Scope of judicial review at this
stage to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is very limited. If allegations contained in
FIR taken to be true, and evidence
collected by police is looked into, it can be
said that offences under aforesaid Sections
in respect whereof cognizance has been
taken and process has been issued, is not
made out, only then interference is
justified. Scope of judicial review in such
matters has been laid down by Supreme
Court time and again and it would be
fruitful to have a retrospect of some
authorities on the subject.

11. At the stage of charge sheet factual
query and assessment of defence evidence is
beyond purview of scrutiny under Section 482
Cr.P.C. The allegations being factual in nature
can be decided only subject to evidence. In
view of settled legal proposition, no findings
can be recorded about veracity of allegations at
this juncture in absence of evidence. Supreme
Court has highlighted that jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. be sparingly/rarely invoked
with complete circumspection and caution. In
Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar
& Others 2019 (6) SCC 107, Supreme Court
observed as to what should be examined by
High Court in an application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under
:

"15. The High Court should have
seen that when a specific grievance of the
appellant in his complaint was that
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed
the offences punishable under Sections 323,
379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the
question to be examined is as to

whether there are allegations of
commission of these two offences in the
complaint or not. In other words, in order
to see whether any prima facie case
against
the
accused
for
taking
its
cognizable is made out or not, the Court is
only required to see the allegations made
in the complaint. In the absence of any
finding recorded by the High Court on this
material question, the impugned order is
legally unsustainable.

16. The second error is that the
High Court in para 6 held that there are
contradictions in the statements of the
witnesses on the point of occurrence.

17. In our view, the High Court
had no jurisdiction to appreciate the
evidence of the proceedings under Section
482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure,
1973
(for
short
"Cr.P.C.")
because
whether there are contradictions or/and
inconsistencies in the statements of the
witnesses is essentially an issue relating to
appreciation of evidence and the same can
be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate
during trial when the entire evidence is
adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to
come in this case." (emphasis added)

12. Recently, above view has been
reiterated in Criminal Appeal No.175 of
2020 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Yogendra Singh Jadaun and another) by
Supreme Court vide judgment dated
31.01.2020.

13. The principles which justify
interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by
Court have been laid down in various
authorities in which Supreme Court's
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan
Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
was leading precedent and thereafter matter
has also been examined by even Larger
Benches.

14. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan
Lal
and
others
(supra)
issue
of
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been considered and what is
laid down therein in paragraph 102, has
been repeatedly followed and reiterated
consistently. In a very recent judgment in
Google
India
Private
Limited
Vs.
Visakha Industries and Ors., AIR 2020
SC 350, guidelines laid down in paragraph
102 in Bhajal Lal's case (supra) have
been reproduced as under :

"102. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by
this Court in a series of decisions relating
to the exercise of the extraordinary power
Under Article 226 or the inherent powers
Under Section 482 of the Code which we
have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly
defined
and
sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive
list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made
in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the Accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the
first
information
report
and
other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not
disclose
a
cognizable
offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers
Under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of
the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against
the Accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated Under Section
155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made
in the FIR or complaint are so absurd
and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground
for
proceeding
against
the
Accused.

(6) Where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted)
to
the
institution
and
continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the
Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the Accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge." (emphasis added)
10 All. Umesh Chandra Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
519

15. Court has also reproduced note of
caution given in paragraph 103 in Bhajan
Lal's case (supra) which reads as under :

"103. We also give a note of
caution to the effect that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised
very
sparingly
and
with
circumspection and that too in the rarest
of rare cases; that the court will not be
justified in embarking upon an enquiry as
to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR or the complaint and that the
extraordinary or inherent powers do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the
court to act according to its whim or
caprice." (emphasis added)

16. What would be the scope of
expression "rarest of rare cases" referred to in
para 103 in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan
Lal (supra) has been considered in Jeffrey J.
Diermeier and Ors. Vs. State of West
Bengal and Ors. , 2010 (6) SCC 243, Court
has said that words "rarest of rare cases" are
used after the words 'sparingly and with
circumspection' while describing scope of
Section 482 CrPC. Those words merely
emphasize and reiterate what is intended to
be conveyed by the words 'sparingly and with
circumspection'. They mean that the power
under Section 482 to quash proceedings
should not be used mechanically or routinely,
but with care and caution, only when a clear
case for quashing is made out and failure to
interfere would lead to a miscarriage of
justice. The expression "rarest of rare cases"
is not used in the sense in which it is used
with reference to punishment for offences
under Section 302 IPC, but to emphasize that
the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash
FIR or criminal proceedings should be used
sparingly and with circumspection.

17. Supreme Court in Jeffrey J.
Diermeier (supra) infact referred to an
earlier Three Judges' Bench judgment in Som
Mittal Vs. State of Karnataka, 2008 (3)
SCC 753, to explain phrase "rarest of rare
cases". In Som Mittal (supra), Court also
said that exercise of inherent power under
Section 482 CrPC is not a rule but exception.
Exception is applied only when it is brought
to notice of Court that grave miscarriage of
justice would be added if trial is allowed to
proceed where accused would be harassed
unnecessarily or if trial is allowed to linger
when prima facie it appears to Court that trial
would likely to be ended in acquittal.
Whenever question of fact is raised which
requires evidence, Courts always said that at
pre trial stage i.e. at the stage of cognizance
taken by Magistrate power under Section 482
CrPC would not be appropriate to be utilized,
since, question of fact has to be decided in the
light of evidence which are yet to be adduced
by parties.

18. In Lakshman vs. State of
Karnataka and others, 2019 (9) SCC 677
Court said that it is not permissible for
High Court in application under Section
482 CrPC to record any finding wherever
there are factual disputes. Court also held
that even in dispute of civil nature where
there is allegation of breach of contract, if
there is any element of breach of trust with
mens rea, it gives rise to criminal
prosecution as well and merely on the
ground that there was civil dispute,
criminality involved in the matter cannot be
ignored. Further whether there is any mens
rea on part of accused or not, is a matter
required to be considered having regard to
facts and circumstances and contents of
complaint and evidence etc, therefore, it
cannot be said pre judged in a petition
under Section 482 CrPC.
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19.

In
Chilakamarthi
Venkateswarlu and Ors. Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and Ors., AIR 2019 SC
3913,
Court
reiterated
that
inherent
jurisdiction though wide and expansive has
to be exercised sparingly, carefully and
with caution and only when such exercise
would justify by tests specifically laid
down in Section itself. In paragraph 14 of
judgment, Court said :

"14. For interference Under
Section 482, three conditions are to be
fulfilled. The injustice which comes to light
should be of a grave, and not of a trivial
character; it should be palpable and clear
and not doubtful and there should exist no
other provision of law by which the party
aggrieved could have sought relief."
 (emphasis added)

20. Court also said that in exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC it is not
permissible for the Court to act as if it were
Trial Court. Court has only to be prima facie
satisfied about existence of sufficient ground
for proceeding against accused. For that
limited purpose, Court can evaluate material
and documents on record but it cannot
appreciate evidence to conclude whether
materials produced are sufficient or not for
convicting accused. High Court should not
exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC
embarking upon an enquiry into whether
evidence is reliable or not or whether on
reasonable
apprehension
of
evidence,
allegations are not sustainable, or decide
function of Trial Judge. For the above
proposition, Court relied on its earlier
authority in Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works
Limited and others vs Mohd. Sharaful
Haque and others, 2005 (1) SCC 122.

21. Power under section 482 CrPC
should not be exercised to stifle legitimate
prosecution. At the same time, if basic
ingredients
of
offfences
alleged
are
altogether absent, criminal proceedings can
be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Relying on M.A.A. Annamalai Vs. State
of Karnataka and Ors. , 2010 (8) SCC
524, Sharda Prasad Sinha Vs. State of
Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 1754 and Nagawwa
Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi
and Ors., 1976 AIR 1976 SC 1947, Court
in Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and
Ors. (supra) said that where allegations set
out in complaint or charge sheet do not
constitute any offence, it is open to High
Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC to quash order
passed by Magistrate taking cognizance of
offence. Inherent power under Section 482
CrPC is intended to prevent abuse of
process of Court and to clear ends of
justice. Such power cannot be exercised to
do something which is expressly barred
under CrPC. Magistrate also has to take
cognizance applying judicial mind only to
see whether prima facie case is made out
for summoning accused persons or not. At
this stage, Magistrate is neither required to
consider FIR version nor he is required to
evaluate value of materials or evidence of
complainant find out at this stage whether
evidence would lead to conviction or not.

22. It has also been so observed in
Rakhi Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and
Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 772 and Sonu Gupta
Vs. Deepak Gupta and Ors. , 2015 (3) SC
424 and followed recently in Roshni
Chopra and others vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2019 (7) Scale 152. Here Court
also referred to judgment in Dy. Chief
Controller of Imports & Exports v.
Roshanlal Agarwal and Ors., (2003) 4
SCC 139, wherein paragraph 9, Court said
that in determining the question whether
any process has to be issued or not,
10 All. Umesh Chandra Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
521
Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there
is sufficient ground for proceeding or not
and whether there is sufficient ground for
conviction;
whether
the
evidence
is
adequate for supporting conviction, can be
determined only at the trial and not at the
stage of inquiry.

23. However, it is also true that at the
stage of issuing process to the accused,
Magistrate is not required to record detailed
reasons. In U.P. Pollution Control Board
vs. Mohan Meaking Limited and others,
2000 (3) SCC 745, after referring to a
decision in Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs State of
West Bengal 2001 SCC 722, Court said :

"Legislature has stressed the need
to record reasons in certain situations such
as dismissal of complaint without issuing
process. There is no such requirement
imposed on a Magistrate for passed detailed
order while issuing summons. Process
issued to accused cannot be quashed merely
on the ground that Magistrate had not
passed a speaking order." (emphasis added)

24. Same proposition was reiterated in
Nupur Talwar Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation and others, 2012 (11) SCC 465.

25. In a Three Judges' Bench in
Parbatbhai Aahir and Ors. Vs State of
Gujarat and Ors, 2017 (9) SCC 641, Court
has observed that Section 482 CrPC is prefaced
with an overriding provision. It saves inherent
power of High Court, as a superior court, to
make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent
an abuse of the process of any court; or
(ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In
Paragraph
15
of
the
judgment
Court
summarized as under :

"(i) Section 482 preserves the
inherent powers of the High Court to
prevent an abuse of the process of any
court or to secure the ends of justice. The
provision does not confer new powers. It
only recognises and preserves powers
which inhere in the High Court;

(ii)
The
invocation
of
the
jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a
First Information Report or a criminal
proceeding on the ground that a settlement
has been arrived at between the offender
and the victim is not the same as the
invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose
of
compounding
an
offence.
While
compounding an offence, the power of the
court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The power to quash
Under Section 482 is attracted even if the
offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion
whether
a
criminal
proceeding
or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of
its jurisdiction Under Section 482, the
High Court must evaluate whether the
ends of justice would justify the exercise
of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of
the High Court has a wide ambit and
plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent
an abuse of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a
complaint or First Information Report
should be quashed on the ground that the
offender and victim have settled the
dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts
and circumstances of each case and no
exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulated;

(vi) In the exercise of the power
Under Section 482 and while dealing with
a plea that the dispute has been settled, the
High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous
and serious offences involving mental
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
depravity or offences such as murder, rape
and dacoity cannot appropriately be
quashed though the victim or the family of
the victim have settled the dispute. Such
offences are, truly speaking, not private in
nature but have a serious impact upon
society. The decision to continue with the
trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences;

(vii)
As
distinguished
from
serious offences, there may be criminal
cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute.
They stand on a distinct footing in so far
as the exercise of the inherent power to
quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving
offences which arise from commercial,
financial,
mercantile,
partnership
or
similar transactions with an essentially
civil flavour may in appropriate situations
fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceeding
if in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction
is remote and the continuation of a
criminal
proceeding
would
cause
oppression and prejudice; and

(x) There is yet an exception to
the principle set out in propositions (viii)
and
(ix)
above.
Economic
offences
involving the financial and economic wellbeing of the state have implications which
lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute
between private disputants. The High
Court would be justified in declining to
quash where the offender is involved in an
activity akin to a financial or economic
fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences
of the act complained of upon the financial
or economic system will weigh in the
balance." (emphasis added)

26. Above observations have been
reiterated in Arun Singh and other Vs
State of U.P. passed in Criminal Appeal
no.250 of 2020 (arising out of Special
Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5224 of 2017),
decided by Supreme Court on 10.02.2020.

27. The authority relied on by learned
counsel for applicant in State of Orissa Vs.
Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) is a judgement
delivered by a Three Judges' Bench of Supreme
Court on a 'Reference' made to larger Bench
expressing doubt on the law laid down by a
Two Judges' Bench in Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi
Administration and Another 1996 (9) SCC
766 in view of an earlier Three Judges' decision
in Superintendent and Remembrancer of
Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar
Bhunja and Others 1979 (4) SCC 274 and
State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh 1977 (4)
SCC 39.

28. Following point was considered by
larger Bench:

"Can the Trial Court at the time of
framing of charge considering the material filed
by accused."

29. Supreme Court answered the
aforesaid question in para-23 and holding that
decision in Satish Mehra (supra) is not
correct, said as under:-

"23. As a result of aforesaid
discussion, in our view, clearly the law is
that at the time of framing charge or
taking cognizance the accused has no
right to produce any material. Satish
Mehra's case holding that the trial court
has powers to consider even materials
which accused may produce at the stage of
Section 227 of the Code has not been
correctly decided." (Emphasis Added)
10 All. Umesh Chandra Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
523

30. In recording of its conclusion as
above, Court categorically said that at the
stage of framing of charge roving and
fishing inquiry is impermissible. It is well
settled that at the stage of framing of
charge, defence of accused cannot be put
forth. If the contention of accused is
accepted, it would mean that accused can
be permitted to adduce his defence at the
stage of framing of charge for examination
thereof at that stage which is against basic
principle of criminal jurisprudence. Court
further said that criminal law has never
accepted any circumstance, when during
trial, an accused can be given opportunity
to lead evidence in defence before charge is
proved by prosecution by leading evidence.

31. The decision in Mohammed
Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar (supra) is also
founded on totally different facts and has
no application. Therein, a complaint was
filed against Mohammed Ibrahim and
others (hereinafter referred to as "accusedappellants") in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Madhubani alleging that he was
owner of Katha No.715 Khasra No.1971
and 1973 ad measuring 1 bigha, 5 Katha
and 18 Dhurs though Md. Ibrahim, the first
accused had no connection with the said
land and no title thereto. Yet, he executed
two registered sale deeds dated 2.6.2003 in
favour of second accused in respect of a
portion of the said land measuring - 8
Khatas and 13 Dhurs. Accused-appellants-
3, 4 and 5 were witness, scribe and stamp
vendor to said sale deeds and conspired
with accused-1 and 2 to forge said
documents and when confronted with said
forgery,
they
abused
Complainant/Informant and hit him with
fists and told him that he can do what he
wanted, but they would get possession of
the land on the basis of said documents.
Aforesaid complaint, filed under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., resulted in order dated
19.07.2003 passed by Magistrate observing
that prima facie offences under Sections
323, 341, 420, 467, 471, 504 IPC are made
out, hence, police was directed to register a
report and proceed for investigation.
Accordingly,
FIR
was
registered
on
10.10.2003 at Police Station Pandaul. After
investigation, a charge sheet was filed on
4.9.2004. Accused applied for discharge.
According to first accused, Complainant
and first accused is a cousin and owners of
Plot Nos.1973 and 1971 jointly. Plots were
inherited by Sri Badri Mian's son (father of
complainant) and by Muthu Mian's son. As
per family arrangement, a portion of said
plots came to the share of Girja (mother of
first accused) and that portion was in
possession of her husband who got it
mutated in his name and paying land
revenue. After his death, land came into the
possession of her son i.e. the first accused.
His name was entered/ mutated in record
and he was paying land revenue. He
bonafide sold a portion of land measuring 8
Khatas and 13 Dhurs to the second
accused. Sale deeds were valid and
complainant filed a false complaint. Other
accused denied any collusion or complicity
in any offence. It was also contended that
in any case, allegations constitute only a
civil dispute having no criminality and no
offence is made out which is an offence
punishable under any law. Application was
contested by prosecution on the ground that
during investigation, it was found that plot
sold was part of land allotted to Badri,
grandfather of Complainant and first
accused could not produce any documents
in support of his title, hence, I.O. submitted
charge-sheet against accused relating to
preparation of false sale deeds. Magistrate
vide order dated 14.12.2005 rejected
application for discharge observing that
there was sufficient material for framing
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
charges.
Accused
thereafter
filed
an
application under Section 482 Cr.PC for
quashing order dated 14.12.2005 passed by
Magistrate rejecting discharge application.
In the meantime, charge-sheet was also
filed against other accused. High Court
rejected application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. on the ground that Magistrate had
found
sufficient
material
showing
complicity of accused and this order was
challenged before Supreme Court. It
formulated a question as under:-

"Whether the material on record
prima facie constitutes any offence against
accused ?"

32. Supreme Court in Mohammed
Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar (supra),
considered the submission of learned counsel
of accused-appellants that if allegation made
in the complaint and FIR, even if accepted in
its entirety did not disclose the ingredients of
offence of forgery or cheating or insult or
wrongful restraint or causing hurt or there
was no other material and, therefore, their
application ought to have been accepted.
Court examined Sections 464, 420, 504 IPC
separately. From a perusal of aforesaid
provisions and also the allegations contained
in FIR and other material, Court found that
no offences under Sections 420, 467, 471,
504, 341, 323 IPC were made out. It is thus
evident that aforesaid judgement is based on
different facts and has no application to the
facts of this case.

33. Here during investigation, I.O. has
found that name of Umesh Chand Saxena
was mentioned in documents prepared for
distribution of scholarship falsely and
fraudulently.
In
fact,
documents
were
prepared subsequently by accused-applicant
and that is why, I.O. found that Gram
Pradhan and Secretary have no role in the
offence
and
they
were
left.
Various
documents which have been placed before
this Court by learned counsel for applicant
are still unproved documents and yet to led as
evidence in Trial Court. Hence, this Court
cannot examine the same and it cannot be
said that no offence against applicant is made
out.

34. Application lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2020)10ILR A524
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5029 of 2020

Rahul Singh & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri J.B. Singh

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

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed for quashing the charge sheet
under section 498-A, 323, 34, 120-B IPC
read with 3/4 D.P. Act.

Section 482 of Cr.P.C.