Allahabad High Court
A482/1719/2020 of SMT. KAMLESH KUMARI Vs STATE OF U.P. and ORS. on 5 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1719 of 2020 Court No. - 23 HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the respondent State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1719 of 2020
Court No. - 23
HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the respondent State.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 23.9.2019 by learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda in Criminal Revision No.236 of 2018 : Smt. Kamlesh Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and others whereby the Court below rejected the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 7.8.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda in Complaint Case No.150997 of 2017 : Smt. Kamlesh Kumar Vs. Kapil Dev and another, relating to Police Station Chhapiya, District Gonda.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party nos.2 and 3 who were posted as Police Constable at Police Station Chhapiya, District Gonda in July, 2016, came to the house of the petitioner on the instructions of one Om Prakash Tripathi, on 13.7.2016. They asked about the husband of petitioner. When the petitioner informed them that her husband is not present at the house then the opposite parties no.2 and 3 forcibly entered the house of petitioner, hurling abuses to the petitioner. Thereafter they looted Rs.20,000/- from the petitioner, damaging the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alok Srivastava, Akash Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Naveen Kumar Pandey, Neeraj Pandey Smt. Kamlesh Kumari .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And Ors. .....Opposite Party(s)
goods/ articles of worth Rs.15,000/-. When the petitioner and her children made a noise then the opposite parties no.2 and 3 left the scene, extending threat of dire consequences.
4. I have carefully perused and examined the material available on record.
5. At the outset, this Court finds that the complainant/applicant has already been examined by the learned Magistrate in proceedings under Section 200 CrPC and thereafter dismissed the case under Section 203 CrPC by a reasoned order. The said order has further been assailed by the applicant before the revisional court, which after due consideration on the facts and law, has dismissed the criminal revision vide order dated 23.09.2019.
6. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly with great caution and only in a case where there is apparent abuse of process of law and it is absolutely necessary to secure ends of justice. The power under Section 482 CrPC may not be invoked as a substitute for statutory remedies provided under the Code.
7. In the case of State of Haryana & others vs. Bhajan Lal & others : 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 where in para no.103, the Apex Court has cautioned that the power of quashing criminal proceedings is to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. He further submitted that it should not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability and the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, and he submits that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer upon the High Court any arbitrary jurisdiction to act according to its whims and caprice.
8. In the present case, learned Magistrate as well as the revisional court have considered the material on record and have arrived at the concurrent A482 No. 1719 of 2020
findings of facts. Re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
9. Moreover, the applicant has other efficacious remedies available in accordance with law. The applicant is at liberty to avail such remedies, if she so desires. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised when adequate and efficacious remedies exist.
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC.
11. Accordingly, this application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed. December 5, 2025 Shravan A482 No. 1719 of 2020
(Rajeev Bharti,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench