Allahabad High Court
Smt Sharda vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:75918
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8485 of 2024
Smt Sharda
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Pankaj Satsangi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi, G.A.
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and the learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. The present criminal appeal has been filed to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 24.7.2024, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Budaun in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1158 of 2023 (Smt. Sharda Vs. Suresh Chandra Gautam S.O and others), Police Station Kunwargaon, District Budaun only to the extent that the opposite party no.2 (Suresh Chandra Gautam, S.O, Police Station Kunwargaon) has not been summoned and direct the learned trial court to decide the complaint filed by the appellant afresh.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that she has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, which has been converted into complaint. The statement of complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C and statement of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has been recorded. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed, but the learned trial court has not summoned the opposite party no.2, though his role was specifically mentioned in the complaint.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that she has made specific allegation also against the opposite party no.2/Suresh Chandra Gautam, Station Officer, Police Station Kunwargaon, Distrit Budaun, whereas no order has been passed against him. Though, she has not disclosed that in what capacity, she has impleaded the Station Officer Incharge of Police Station Kunwargaon, district Budaun.
5. In the complainant, it is stated that the appellant is the resident of village Sigoi, Police Station Kunwargaon, district Budaun, but resides at Punjab for livelihood of her children. She reside in sometime at his parental home alongwith her children because mental condition of her father was not appropriate. She has mentioned in the complaint that the incident is of 8.8.2023 and her cousin Sandeep and Durvesh and bhabhi Mithlesh came along with lathi, danda and entered into her house. They have hurled abuses to her and beaten her with legs, fists and danda. Mithlesh had hit on her head by bricks and his head was ruptured. They have also beaten to daughters of the complainant. Whereas, there is no injury report has been filed by the complainant/appellant either before the learned trial court or before this Court.
6. In the said complaint, the appellant has further mentioned that after fled away of the accused persons, she had went to the police station Kunwargaon alongwith her two daughters,where the opposite party no.2/Suresh Chandra Gautam had remarked her with castiest remarks and beaten her. She was completely soaked with blood and thereafter, she was challaned under Section 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C and lady constable taken her to Tehsil Budaun where she was released on bail, but no medical examination was done at any place and no medical evidence has been filed by the appellant.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is allegation on the opposite party no.2/Suresh Chandra Gautam that he also beaten her and made castiest remarks, but no order has been passed against him by the learned trial court. Whereas, there is no allegation of castiest remark against other accused, Sandeep, Durveshg and Mithlesh because they belong to scheduled caste, hence no offence under SC/ST has been made against them.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that there was some scuffle took place between the appellant and her family members, hence only in order to take revenge from the family member and sent them in jail, appellant hurt her head herself and thereafter went to the police station alongwith village Pradhan, where the opposite party no.2 was posted as Station House Officer. It is stated that the opposite party no.2 never misbehaved with the appellant, but he has been falsely implicated because the appellant as well as her family members were challaned under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C, hence appellant has falsely trapped the opposite party no.2 also.
9. In the said counter affidavit, the report of investigation has been annexed as Annexure-1, in which statement of independent witnesses have been recorded. The witnesses stated that the complainant/appellant-Sharda was the only daughter of Tarkishan and she resides in Punjab. Sharda had left her husband, Rajveer and never take care of her father. One time, Sharda had put fire on the 'chhappar' of her father so that her father may die and property of Tarkishan shall be inherited in the name of appellant/complainant. The father of the complainant is taken care by Durvesh and his wife Mithlesh. The father of the complainant had deposed before the police station that her daughter never take care of him and he is having no relationship with her. Once she had put fire on my chhapper. My daughter want to kill me to grab my property. It was advised to Tarkishan that he may live with the appellant, then he told that she does not reside here and lives in Punjab. I will not go with her as she will kill me. On this, complainant/appellant has made allegation that her cousin Durvesh had taught to her father. Thereafter, Durvesh was send back. There was conversation has been took place between the appellant alongwith her father about three hours, but father of the complainant/appellant was not agreed it. The complainant/appellant caught hands of her father, but her father left after removing his hand from her daughter. The father and daughter has been further called at the police station for compromise on 7.8.2023, then there was injury on the head of the appellant/complainant on 7.8.2023. It is verbally informed by the complainant that she has been beaten by her father and her brother Durvesh. Thereafter, bhabhi Mithlesh and Gram Pradhan and other persons came and they informed that none has beaten to the appellant/complainant. She has herself hit her head with a bricks. Thereafter, the complainant has further hit her head on the floor. Thereafter proceedings under Section 151, 107/116 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the appellant/complainant and her bhabhi Mithlesh and registered report on 7.8.2023.
10. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and another; 2022 (5) SCC 720 by Three Judges Bench,(Authored by Hon. Surya Kant, J) held as under:-
"12. At the outset, we may note that the High Court has dismissed the Criminal Revision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction under section 397 of Cr.P.C. The High Court did not examine the issue in detail to find out whether the continuation of proceedings will amount to abuse of process of law in this case. The impugned order cites the decision of this Court in Asian Resurfacing (supra) wherein it was noted as under: -
"Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C.or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re- appreciate the matter."
13. It appears to us that while limiting the scope of a criminal revision to jurisdictional errors alone, the High Court apparently underappreciated the Judgment in Asian Resurfacing (supra). We say so at least for two reasons. First, the material facts in the abovecited case dealt with a challenge to the charges framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("POCA"). The cited judgment itself enlightens that not only is POCA a special legislation, but also contains a specific bar under Section 19 against routine exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Second, This Court in Asian Resurfacing (Supra) while expressing concern regarding the need to tackle rampant pendency and delays in our criminal law system, followed the ratio laid down in an earlier decision in Madhu Limaye V. State of Maharashtra as can be seen from the following extract: "
27. Thus, even though in dealing with different situations, seemingly conflicting observations may have been made while holding that the order framing charge was interlocutory order and was not liable to be interfered with under Section 397(2) or even under Section 482 CrPC, the principle laid down in Madhu Limaye [Madhu Limaye V. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551: 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] still holds the field. Order framing charge may not be held to be purely an interlocutory order and can in a given situation be interfered with under Section 397(2) CrPC or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution which is a constitutional provision but the power of the High Court to interfere with an order framing charge and to grant stay is to be exercised only in a exceptional situation."
14. In Madhu Limaye (supra), this Court authoritatively held:-
"9... Sometimes the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court has also been resorted to for the same kind of relief by challenging the order taking cognizance or issuing processes or framing charge on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance and proceed with the trial, that the issuance of process was wholly illegal or void, or that no charge could be framed as no offence was made out on the allegations made or the evidence adduced in Court.
10. ....Even assuming, although we shall presently show that it is not so, that in such a case an order of the Court taking cognizance or issuing processes is an interlocutory order, does it stand to reason to say that inherent power of the High Court cannot be exercises for stopping the criminal proceeding as early as possible, instead of harassing the accused up to the end? The answer is obvious that the bar will not operate to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and/or to secure the ends of justice. The label of the petition filed by an aggrieved party is immaterial.
15. The correct position of law as laid down in Madhu Limaye (supra), thus, is that orders framing charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature and are therefore not affected by the bar of Section 397 (2) of CrPC. That apart, this Court in the abovecited cases has unequivocally acknowledged that the High Court is imbued with inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice having regard to the facts and circumstance of individual cases. As a caveat it may be stated that the High Court, while exercising its aforestated jurisdiction ought to be circumspect. The discretion vested in the High Court is to be invoked carefully and judiciously for effective and timely administration of criminal justice system. This Court, nonetheless, does not recommend a complete hands off approach. Albeit, there should be interference, may be, in exceptional cases, failing which there is likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen. For example, when the contents of a complaint or the other purported material on record is a brazen attempt to persecute an innocent person, it becomes imperative upon the Court to prevent the abuse of process of law.
16. Further, it is well settled that the trial court while considering the discharge application is not to act as a mere post office. The Court has to sift through the evidence in order to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to try the suspect. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, total effect of evidence and documents produced and the basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. [ Union of India V. Prafulla Kumar Samal].Likewise, the Court has sufficient discretion to order further investigation in appropriate cases, if need be. It is also held that discharge is a valuable right provided to the accused."
11. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Anand Rai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another; 2026 INSC 141. In paragraph no. 21 it is held as under:-
"21. Before parting with the matter, it is observed that at the stage of framing of charge or considering discharge, the Court is not dealing with an abstract legal exercise. It is dealing with real people, real anxieties, and the real weight of criminal prosecution. Judicial responsibility at this stage calls for care, balance, and an honest engagement with the facts on record. The power to frame a charge is not meant to be exercise by default or out of caution alone. When the material placed before the Court, take at the face value, does not disclose the ingredients of an offence, the law expects the Court to have the clarity and courage to say so and to keep such a case aside.|"
12. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sujoy Ghosh vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, reported in 2026 INSC 267, in paragraphs 13 and 14 as follows: "13. The principles governing the summoning of an accused in a criminal case, as well as the parameters for quashing criminal proceedings, are well settled. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter, and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect application of mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate must carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and determine whether any offence is prima facie made out. The Magistrate may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise, and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. (See: Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749; Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1534.) 14. When an accused seeks quashing of either the FIR or criminal proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious, or malicious, the Court is duty-bound to examine the matter with greater care. It will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/ complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case, over and above the averments, and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, and try to read between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/ registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the the course of investigation. (See: Mohd. Wajid & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2023) 20 SCC 219)."
13. It appears that matter has been exaggerated and there is family dispute relating to the property. The appellant has not impleaded the other three accused whereas they have been summoned by the learned trial court, whereas there has been no allegation against them of SC/ST Act. The appellant/complainant wants to settle score alongwith Station Officer Incharge, Suresh Chandra Gautam and she impleaded him in his personal capacity. However, there is no substance in the allegation against the opposite party no.2.
14. In view thereof, the appeal is having no legal force and it is liable to be dismissed.
15. The criminal appeal is dismissed.
(Abdul Shahid,J.) April 8, 2026 sfa/