w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Upendra Kumar Gupta v/s State of U.P. & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40100MH2005PTC154038

Company & Directors' Information:- M R GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC051324

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51311DL1996PTC077255

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52110DL1974PTC007339

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA AND GUPTA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55204DL1954PTC002390

Company & Directors' Information:- S K GUPTA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26900MH1973PTC016294

Company & Directors' Information:- R. K. GUPTA AND COMPANY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC052138

Company & Directors' Information:- B R GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63013DL2000PTC107343

Company & Directors' Information:- T N GUPTA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U02005WB1951PTC020141

Company & Directors' Information:- A V GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U24239DL1999PTC102248

Company & Directors' Information:- Y P GUPTA AND COMPANY PVT LTD [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC016661

Company & Directors' Information:- J S GUPTA AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U20211UP1975PTC004078

Company & Directors' Information:- M K GUPTA AND CO PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL1979PTC009517

Company & Directors' Information:- A J GUPTA AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210UP1980PTC004986

Company & Directors' Information:- UPENDRA KUMAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090DL2020PTC366991

Company & Directors' Information:- D. R. GUPTA & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1944PTC000794

Company & Directors' Information:- S P GUPTA AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U26932RJ1972PTC001459

    Application U/s 482 No. 14630 of 2020

    Decided On, 18 November 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV

    For the Applicant: Dharmendra Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: G.A.



Judgment Text

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record.2. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record.3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 21.08.2020 and the Special Trial No.190 of 2019 (Chandra Pal versus Hari Shankar Tripathi and another), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC & 3(2)5a SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar Banda, District Banda pending in the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) / Additional District Judge, Banda.4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent. He has committed no offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case purposely for the humiliation and harassment at the behest of one Dinesh Nigam, Advocate who is rival of applicant. It is further submitted that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by opposite party no.2 Chandrapal on which police report was sought and police submitted its report stating that no incident is found to have taken place. Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. came to be registered as complaint case and upon consideration of statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., Court below passed the summoning order without appreciation of proper evidence and without application of judicial mind. It is further submitted that entire prosecution story is false and fake, it is just for harassment and humiliating the applicant. It is further submitted that prior to the present complaint case, wife of opposite party no.2 had lodged an FIR being crime no.22 of 2020 against the applicant in which applicant is on bail and all the cases against the applicant are being lodged on the provocation of Dinesh Nigam, Advocate. It is further submitted that there is no motive to present applicant to commit the present crime. Entire prosecution against the applicant is malafide and malicious and it is the abuse of process of Court and no prima-facie case is made out. He showed some papers and statements in favour of his contention. Lastly he submitted that, in case, prayer made in the application is not granted, an order for consideration of discharge may be passed.5. Per contra learned AGA vehemently opposed the application and submitted that police report in favour of accused-applicant is no bar to Magistrate to register the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint case, learned Court below rightly registered the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as complaint case and recorded the statements of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C.; witnesses supported the prosecution case and Court below found sufficient ground for proceedings and summoned the accused-applicant for facing the trial under the aforesaid sections. It is further submitted that entire submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant is on fact of the case which cannot be adjudicated at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Truthfulness of allegation and statement of witnesses can be adjudicated only after the evidence is produced in the trial court.6. As per complaint, on 01.09.2019 at about 12 O' Clock, complainant / opposite party no.2 herein was going to market from his house for purchasing home utensils, when he reached near old RTO Office, then accused Upendra Kumar and Hari Shanker came by motorcycle from behind and abused him in filthy language by name of his caste and started beating him due to which he received internal injuries, when complainant opposed from doing so, accused-applicant Upendra Kuamr raised his tamancha towards complainant for killing him, he raised alarm whereupon some passers by arrived there, accused persons ran away from spot extending threat for killing him by his motorcycle.7. It is well settled that exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is the exception and not the rule. Under this section, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law, including procedural law and not otherwise.8. A look at complaint, allegations made therein and statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. would show that opposite party no. 2 herein, incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the accused-applicant for the offence alleged. The question whether the victim will be able to prove the allegation in the manner known to law would arise only at a later stage. It cannot be said that prima-facie case is not made out against the applicant.9. In Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 259, Court has held that it is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. If the factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint, the court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during the investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details.10. In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and 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)11. Recently, Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1817 of 2019 (M. Jayanthi Vs. K.R. Meenakshi and another) decided on 02.12.2019 has held:"It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry in

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

to the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged."12. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for parties and keeping in view the facts and legal proposition discussed hereinabove, I do not find any good ground warranting interference in the matter. It is not a case of grave injustice.13. Accordingly, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
O R