# Vinod & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 206
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-21
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr. P.C.) No. 37442 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44934
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Summoning order -
Complaint Case - it is apparent that the
accused persons have been summoned
for offences, punishable, under Sections
354, 323 and 504 of IPC for which there
is no precedent of having medico legal
report because the ingredient of physical
assault with complainant was there, and
a complaint can be made without there
being
any
medico
legal
report-The
applicants cannot seek indulgence of this
Court, for exercise of inherent power,
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - It is not
expected from this Court to meticulously
analyze
evidences
at
this
juncture,
rather it is a question to be decided at
the time of trial by the Trial court.

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C rejected. (E-3)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(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".

8. Meaning thereby, exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded
as above.

9. In view of what has been
discussed above, this Application, filed
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being
devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A206

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Crl. Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr. P.C.) No.
37442 of 2019

Vinod & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Amrit Shanker Dubey

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

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Summoning order -
Complaint Case - it is apparent that the
accused persons have been summoned
for offences, punishable, under Sections
354, 323 and 504 of IPC for which there
is no precedent of having medico legal
report because the ingredient of physical
assault with complainant was there, and
a complaint can be made without there
being
any
medico
legal
report-The
applicants cannot seek indulgence of this
Court, for exercise of inherent power,
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - It is not
expected from this Court to meticulously
analyze
evidences
at
this
juncture,
rather it is a question to be decided at
the time of trial by the Trial court.

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

4. Popular Muthiah Vs. St., 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. v. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ
1005: AIR 1989 SC 1

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants over this Application, moved
under
Section
482
of
Code
of
CriminalProcedure,
1973
(In
short
'Cr.P.C.'), by the applicants, with a prayer
for quashing of impugned summoning
4 All. Vinod & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
207
order, dated 1.7.2019, passed by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Firozabad,
thereby,
entire
criminal
proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case
No. 03181 of 2018, Smt. Guddi Devi vs.
Indrapal & others, under Sections 354,
323 and 504 of Indian Penal Code (In
short 'IPC'), Police Station Narkhi,
District Firozabad, as well as learned
AGA, representing State of U.P., and
perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants
argued that there is no injury nor any such
occurrence
ever
occurred,
but
this
complainant, by way of an application,
under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., was
treated as complaint, wherein, above
summoning order was passed. Occurrence
was said to be of 28.7.2018, at 2.00 PM,
and this delayed report was filed on
26.9.2018, under Section 156 (3) of
Cr.P.C and this summoning order was
passed against fact on record. Applicants
have already filed a case against the
complainant and her family members,
wherein, this accusation was levelled that
some money was advanced and when
demanded back this false accusation was
threatened and subsequently was got
lodged. Hence, this was misuse of process
of law and as such by means of this
Application, under Section 482, a prayer
for exercise of inherent power by this
Court for setting aside summoning order
as well s entire criminal proceeding of
complaint case, aforesaid, has been made
by the applicants.

3. Learned AGA, representing State
of U.P., has opposed this Application.

4. From very perusal of the
summoning order, it is apparent that the
accused persons have been summoned for
offecnces, punishable, under Sections
354, 323 and 504 of IPC for which there
is no precedent of having medico legal
report because the ingredient of physical
assault with complainant was there, and a
complaint can be made without there
being any medico legal report. The
complainant, in her application, under
Section
156(3)
of
Cr.P.C.,
has
categorically said when the complainant
was sleeping in her house and her
younger son
had
gone somewhere,
Indrapal, did criminally trespass into the
house, and caught-hold the complainant,
committed rape with her, extending threat
of life by putting Tamancha (country
made pistol) on her and on making rescue
call, shut her mouth and threatened of
killing all family members, in case of
making any complaint of the incident,
thenafter, ran away from the spot. She
made a complaint to her husband, but
owing to family reputation, matter was
not reported to the police. Indrapal, taking
benefit of above situation, continued to
extend threat to the complainant by using
different
numbers
by
Cell
Phones.
Thenafter, an application, under Section
156 (3) of Cr.P.C. was moved, wherein
complainant was examined, under Section
200 of Cr.P.C. and two witnesses, were
examined, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C,
who have corroborated and reiterated the
contentions, made in the complaint, on the
basis of which impugned summoning
order was passed. Previous proceeding
filed by the accused persons reveals that
there were intimate relation between the
parties, but because of demanding back of
money, advanced, this case was came to
be filed. Meaning thereby, both sides
were acquainted with each other, but
merely taking a ground of demanding
back of money advanced, the applicants
cannot seek indulgence of this Court, for
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
exercise of inherent power, under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. Moreso, it is not expected
from this Court to meticulously analyze
evidences at this juncture, rather it is a
question to be decided at the time of trial
by the Trial court.

5. 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".

6. 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
inexercise 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".
4 All. Shiv Sahai & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
209

7. Meaning thereby, exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded
as above.

8. In view of what has been
discussed above, this Application, being
devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and
stands dismissed accordingly
----------

(2019)12 ILR A209

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Crl. Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr. P.C.) No.
37504 of 2019

Shiv Sahai & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P.& Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Anurag Kumar Pandey

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

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 482 & Indian
Penal Code,1860- Sections 148, 149,
452,
380
and
506-challenge
tosummoning order-counter-blast case- 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. (Para 6)

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. (Para 5)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited: -

1. St. of A.P. Vs Gour Sheety Mahesh J.T.
2010 (6) SCC 588

2. Hamida Vs Rashid (2008) 1 SCC 474

3. Monika Kumar Vs St. of U.P. (2008) 8 SCC 781

4. Popular Muthiah Vs State, Represented by
Inspector 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 and anr.Vs. St.of U.P. r 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. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants over this Application, moved
by the applicants, under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (In
short 'Cr.P.C.'), with a prayer for setting
aside summoning order, dated 26.10.2018,
passed by the court of Ist Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, in
Criminal Complaint Case No. 5201 of
2016, Kallu vs. Shiv Sahai and others,
under Sections 148, 149, 452, 380 and
506 of Indian Penal Code (In short 'IPC'),
Police
Station-Panaur,
District
Shahjahanpour , thereby, quashing entire
criminal proceeding of above case, as