# Vertika Chitravanshi v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 953
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-16
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 11934 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vertika-chitravanshi-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47422
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
jurisdiction - 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 -
powers are to be exercised ex debito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice
for the administration of which alone the
Courts exist - Inherent powers are
coextensive with the text of the Code -
may be exercised only in respect of any of
the matters covered by the Code -
Expression "any Court" under the section
would refer to a Criminal Court - powers
are
to
be
exercised
in
relation
to
proceedings pending before or disposed of
by a Criminal Court .(Para - 6,8,10)

Proceedings u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 - direction was issued to proceed ex
parte - date was fixed for evidence - aggrieved
by order passed by family court - present
application u/s 482 - quashing of. (Para - 2)

HELD:-
In the facts of the present case,
order having been passed in proceedings under
section 9 of the HMA, it would not be open to
the applicant to invoke the inherent powers of
this Court under section 482 of the Code,
seeking quashing of the aforesaid order.
Applicant does not dispute legal position with
regard to the ambit and scope of exercise of
jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code and
does not wish to press the application. Para -
11,12 )

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:-

Emperor Vs Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, AIR 1945 PC
18

## Text

9 All Vertika Chitravanshi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
953
impugned order which may persuade this
Court to interfere in the same. The amount
fixed for maintenance was Rs.2000/- for the
wife and Rs.1000/- for the each child, which
in the present days of high price rise cannot
be
said
to
be
either
excessive
or
disproportionate. The provisions of Section
125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions which
are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute
wife and provide some succour to them, who
are entitled to get the maintenance which has
been wrongly denied. The fact that the
applicant is the husband of respondent no.2
has not been denied.

7. In such circumstances to meet the
ends of justice, does not require any
interference.
There
is
no
illegality,
impropriety and incorrectness in the
impugned order and also there seems to be
no abuse of court's process.

8. In view of the above, the present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks
merit and stands dismissed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A953
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 11934 of 2021

Vertika Chitravanshi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Dhirendra Nath Srivastava, Sri Raj Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.
(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
jurisdiction - 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 -
powers are to be exercised ex debito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice
for the administration of which alone the
Courts exist - Inherent powers are
coextensive with the text of the Code -
may be exercised only in respect of any of
the matters covered by the Code -
Expression "any Court" under the section
would refer to a Criminal Court - powers
are
to
be
exercised
in
relation
to
proceedings pending before or disposed of
by a Criminal Court .(Para - 6,8,10)

Proceedings u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 - direction was issued to proceed ex
parte - date was fixed for evidence - aggrieved
by order passed by family court - present
application u/s 482 - quashing of. (Para - 2)

HELD:-
In the facts of the present case,
order having been passed in proceedings under
section 9 of the HMA, it would not be open to
the applicant to invoke the inherent powers of
this Court under section 482 of the Code,
seeking quashing of the aforesaid order.
Applicant does not dispute legal position with
regard to the ambit and scope of exercise of
jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code and
does not wish to press the application. Para -
11,12 )

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:-

Emperor Vs Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, AIR 1945 PC
18

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the applicant and Ms.
Sushma
Soni,
learned
Additional
954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government Advocate appearing for the
State-opposite party.

2. The present application under section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
19731 has been filed with a prayer to quash
the order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, District
Kanpur Nagar in Case No.1167 of 2020
(Apurva
Saxena
v.
Smt.
Vartika
Chitravanshi), in proceedings under Section 9
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19552, whereby a
direction was issued to proceed ex parte and a
date was fixed for evidence.

3. The previous order dated 04.08.2021
indicates that a preliminary objection had
been raised by the learned Additional
Government Advocate to the effect that
provisions of section 482 of the Code cannot
be invoked to quash proceedings of a civil
nature, and accordingly the relief sought by
means of the present application to quash the
order passed by the Principal Judge, Family
Court, in proceedings under section 9 of the
HMA, cannot be granted.

4. In order to examine as to whether
the inherent powers of the High Court
under section 482 of the Code, may be
invoked to seek quashing of the order
passed in proceedings under the HMA, the
provisions contained under section 482 of
the Code are required to be adverted to.
Section 482 of the Code reads as follows:

"482. Saving of inherent powers
of High Court. 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."

5. Section 482 of the Code envisages
three situations under which the inherent
powers of the High Court may be
exercised, namely: (i) to give effect to any
order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse
of the process of the Court, or (iii) to
otherwise secure the ends of justice.

6. The inherent jurisdiction under the
section though wide, is 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. The powers are to be exercised ex
debito justitiae to do real and substantial
justice for the administration of which
alone the Courts exist.

7. Section 482 of the Code provides
for saving of the inherent powers of the
High Court to make such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under
the Code or prevent abuse of process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice.

8. The invocation of inherent powers
of the High Court, therefore, can be made
in respect of proceedings pending before or
disposed of by Criminal Courts and such
powers cannot ordinarily be exercised in
relation to orders passed by an authority not
functioning under the Code or in respect of
proceedings
which
are
not
criminal
proceedings in a Court.

9. Referring to Section 561-A of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (which
corresponds to Section 482 of the new
Code) the Privy Council in Emperor vs.
Khwaja Nazir Ahmed3, held that the said
section does not give to the High Court any
increased powers, it only provides that
those which the Court already inherently
9 All Yas Mohammad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
955
possess, shall be preserved. It was stated
thus :-

"It has sometimes been thought
that Section 561A has given increased
powers to the Court which it did not
possess before that section was enacted.
But this is not so. The section gives no new
powers, it only provides that those which
the Court already inherently possess shall
be preserved and is inserted, as their
Lordships
think,
lest
it
should
be
considered that the only powers possessed
by the Court are those expressly conferred
by the Criminal Procedure Code and that
no inherent power had survived the passing
of that Act."

10. It is, therefore, seen that the
inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 can be invoked only to make
such orders, as may be necessary, to give
effect to any order under the Code or to
prevent abuse of process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The
inherent powers are coextensive with the
text of the Code and may be exercised only
in respect of any of the matters covered by
the Code. The expression "any Court"
under the section would refer to a Criminal
Court. The language and the phraseology
used under the section make it clear that the
powers are to be exercised in relation to
proceedings pending before or disposed of
by a Criminal Court and such powers
would not be exercisable in relation to an
order
passed
by
an
authority
not
functioning under the Code or in respect of
proceedings
which
are
not
criminal
proceedings.

11.

Applying
the
aforestated
principles, in the facts of the present case,
the order dated 25.03.2021 having been
passed in proceedings under section 9 of
the HMA, it would not be open to the
applicant to invoke the inherent powers of
this Court under section 482 of the Code,
seeking quashing of the aforesaid order.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant
has fairly submitted that he does not
dispute to the aforesaid legal position with
regard to the ambit and scope of exercise of
jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code.
He accordingly submits that he does not
wish to press the application.

13.

The
application
stands
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A955
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 12300 of 2021

Yas Mohammad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ramesh Kumar Chaurasia, Sri Harish Pratap
Singh

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

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Section 451- Order for custody
and disposal of property pending trial in
certain cases - Section 452 - Order for
disposal of property at conclusion of trial -
Section 457 - Procedure by police upon
seizure of property - The Uttar Pradesh
Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955
(PCSA)

-
Sections
3/5-A/8
,
The