Allahabad High Court
Ram Singh Chauhan And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 September, 2025
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:170469
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32551 of 2025
Ram Singh Chauhan And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ashok Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 73
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. As per compliance affidavit, notice is personally served upon the respondent No. 2. However, despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on his behalf.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.
3. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS to quash the entire proceeding including charge sheet dated 24.06.2021 , 04.09.2021 and cognizance order dated 14.03.2022 in S.S.T. No. 49 of 2022 (State Vs. Ram Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 100 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) va SC/ST Act, Police Station-Line Bazar, District- Jaunpur, pending in the court of the Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Jaunpur.
4. As per the FIR version, on 23.04.2021, at about 5 p.m., the alleged incident took place, wherein first informant and his two nephews were assaulted and abused with caste-based slurs on account of old enmity. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the FIR, the place of occurrence of the offence has not been indicated; however, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the first informant has stated that the place of occurrence of the offence was near a room constructed in the agricultural field of Munna Thakur. As per his statement, owing to old enmity, all the accused assaulted Arvind Kumar, son of Mohanlal (nephew of the first informant) and abused him caste-based slurs. Learned counsel for the applicants has laid emphasis on the statement of Arvind Kumar, (one of the injured) who has not referred any old enmity, rather stated that accused were playing cards towards the east of the room constructed in the agricultural field of Munna Thakur. While he went there, all the accused uttered caste-based slurs and assaulted him. The statement of Arvind Kumar has been supported by his brother Govind, who was also injured in the incident in question. It is submitted that no independent member of the public is shown to have been present on the spot to substantiate the allegation of utterance of caste-based slurs.
5. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and contended that the injury reports of Sahab Lal and Arvind Kumar substantiates the incident in question. He has emphasized that incident allegedly took place in the agricultural field of the Munna Thakur, near a room, where other persons were also present who were playing cards. Therefore, the place of occurrence of the offence can be regarded as a place within public view. He has further contended that in the facts and circumstances of the present case coupled with the material collected by the Investigating officer a case is made out against the present applicants. Therefore, the instant application is liable to be rejected being misconceived and devoid of merit.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA and upon perusal of the record, it is manifest that the Sahab Lal (first informant) and his nephew (Arvind Kumar) have sustained grievous injuries, which is evident from their medical report. As per the medical report of Sahab Lal, injury number 1 is a three stitch wound on the left side ear and injury number 2 is a contusion. Arvind Kumar has suffered four injuries; first is a stitch wound, the second is seven stitch wound, the third is also a stitch wound and the fourth is pain all over the body. Both the injury reports substantiates the allegation of assault made by the first informant. Thus, prima facie, at this stage, the allegation under Section 323 IPC cannot be denied. As per the averments made in the FIR, coupled with the statements of the first informant and the injured, the allegations of criminal intimidation and intentional insult cannot be negated as well. So far as the offense under Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act is concerned, I am skeptical of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein the incident is alleged to have taken place in an agricultural field, near a room, no case is made out under the S.C./S.T. Act. Admittedly, the first informant and the accused belongs to the same village and in light of the assault made by the accused the offense under the S.C./S.T. Act cannot be negated as well. A conjoined reading of the FIR, the material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation and particularly, the medical reports of both the injured, prima facie, indicated that the complicity of the present applicants in the commission of the crime cannot be negated. The innocence of the applicants, as is being tried to put forward by learned counsel for the applicants, is a matter of examination which can be adjudicated upon by the trial court more appropriately after appraising the evidence on record. At this juncture, this Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial to examine the innocence of the present applicants. I neither found any abuse of the process of law to the proceeding which has been challenged before this Court nor any justifiable ground to pass any order for the purposes of securing the ends of justice, therefore, there is no justification to exercise inherent power of this Court under Section 528 BNSS.
7. Record reveals that learned counsel for the applicant has raised disputed question of fact qua involvement of present applicant in the incident in question.
8. In exercise of inherent power under Section 528 B.N.S.S., this Court is not expected to analyze the factual evidence which is to be placed before the trial court. The power conferred under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is very specific and wide to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code. No provision of this Code is deemed to limit or effect such inherent power of the High Court.
9. It has been held by the Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab : AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. : (1999) 8 SCC 686 3; M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh & Anr. : (2001) 8 SCC 645; Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. : (2011) 7 SCC 59; Arun Bhandari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. : (2013) 2 SCC 801; Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Anr. : (2019) 11 SCC 706 that exercise of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the rarest of the rare case is made out to scuttle the prosecution in its inception.
10. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observation in Paragraph 61 which is quoted herein below :-
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or an FIR or a complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline en-grafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court."
11. In Criminal Appeal No. 675 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1151 of 2018, Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar and others, 2019 (6) SCC 107, the Apex Court has held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidences of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because where there are contradictions or the inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses, is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidences and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial, when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. The same view has also been reiterated in judgment dated 31.07.2019 passed by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1082 of 2019, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10762 of 2018, Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another.
12. In the case of Priti Saraf & anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & anr. Criminal Appeal No(s). 296 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6364 of 2019] (judgment dated March 10, 2021) : 2021 SCC Online SC 206 the Apex Court while considering the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has held as follows :-
"23. It being a settled principle of law that to exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC, the complaint in its entirely shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/ FIR/charge-sheet and the High Court at that stage was not under an obligation to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. The offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and other documentary evidence, if any, on record."
13. The scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC has been examined in detail by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335). The relevant para is mentioned hereunder :-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bur engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code on the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due 10 private and personal grudge."
14. It has been further elucidated recently by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 964 where jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been analysed at great length.
15. Further, in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918, Full Bench of the Apex Court while considering the powers of quashing under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India has illustrated the circumstances under which quashing of a criminal case can be done and/or interim order can be granted.
16. Therefore, the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. In absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 262 or 250/251 B.N.S.S. as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
17. Having considered the rival submissions advance by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and the material available on record, in the light of dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, no ground is made out to consider the merits of the instant case. As such, prayer of quashing as made in instant application is hereby refused.
18. Accordingly, the present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is hereby dismissed.
(Dinesh Pathak,J.) September 23, 2025 vkg