Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 691 (ALL)

Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. State of U. P.

2020-03-04

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicant, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, with a prayer for restraining Station Officer, Police Station-Baharia, District-Allahabad, from arresting applicant, in execution of warrant of court or otherwise and from executing the process, under Sections 82 and 83 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against applicant, in Case Crime No.45 of 2019, under Sections 147, 149, 201, 34, 498A, 306 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station-Baharia, District-Allahabad. 2. Learned counsel for applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No.45 of 2019, under Sections 147, 149, 201, 34, 498A, 306 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station-Baharia, District-Allahabad. Applicant, being elder brother of husband of the deceased, was having separate living and was having no concern with the alleged demand of dowry and cruelty, with regard to it or committing of suicide by the deceased. Chargesheet has been filed against rest of the accused persons and investigation against applicant is said to be pending, wherein, proclamation, under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C., is being said to be issued. An application, for grant of anticipatory bail, being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.58000 of 2019, Sanjay Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P., has been rejected by this Court. He applied for having copy of the order of warrant, issued against him, alongwith order of proclamation and attachment, being said to be issued, under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C., but, he could not have copies of those orders. Statements of two daughters of the deceased is there in the case diary, wherein, they have specifically said that Sanjay Kumar Yadav, present applicant herein, was having a separate living, by constructing house of his own. Chargesheet, against applicant, can be filed if his involvement is there and thereafter the same can be challenged before the appropriate court, but, the Investigating Officer is adamant to arrest applicant. Hence, this all was under abuse of process of law Therefore, for avoiding abuse of process of law, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed, with above prayer. 3. Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application. 4. From very perusal of Criminal Misc. Hence, this all was under abuse of process of law Therefore, for avoiding abuse of process of law, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed, with above prayer. 3. Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application. 4. From very perusal of Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.58000 of 2019 and the order passed over it, annexed herewith at page 70 of the Paper Book, it is apparent that Non Bailable Warrants have been issued against the applicants and his application for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected, meaning thereby, Non Bailable Warrant, coupled with proclamation, under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., followed by attachment, under Section 83 of Cr.P.C., is being said to be issued against applicant, in Case Crime No.45 of 2019, and applicant, by means of present proceeding, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has prayed for a direction that the applicant be not arrested, in execution of those processes. Meaning thereby, same relief, which was claimed by way of above Criminal Misc. Bail Application, has been again prayed for by circumventing proceedings, in present proceeding, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.. 5. This Court may not give any opinion about fact or involvement of accused-applicant in above case crime number, but, under all above facts and circumstances and looking to the verdict of the Apex Court in the case of Lavesh vs State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730 , this Court finds no ground for any indulgence to be granted to the applicant. 6. Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, Apex Court, in the case of 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, 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 the case of 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". 7. 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, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., merits dismissal and it stands dismissed accordingly.