Allahabad High Court
Altaf And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:185211
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 45841 of 2018
Altaf And 6 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Amar Jeet Upadhyay, Sundeep Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Anand Kumar Singh, G.A., Sandeep Kumar Srivastava
Court No. - 85
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
1. List revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.
2. Heard Sri Sundeep Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire material available on record.
3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 19.09.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Moradabad in Complaint Case No. 4286/9 of 2018; (Zamir ul Hasan vs. Altaf and others), under Sections 323, 324, 326-B, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Bilari, District Moradabad, pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Moradabad.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the marriage of applicant no. 1 was solemnized with daughter of opposite party no. 2 on 19.4.2017 and further it is specifically submitted that the marriage was solemnized without any dowry, and after sometime, the daughter of opposite party no. 2 pressurized applicant no. 1 to live separately from in-laws house at her parental house, but he refused to do so. He further submits on 26.11.2017, daughter of opposite party no. 2 had left her matrimonial house to live at her parental house. Thereafter on 7.12.2017, with the collusion of opposite party no. 2, the daughter of opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 156(3) against the applicants with the allegation that they demanded additional dowry of Rs. 10/- Lacs and a Car and as she was unable to fulfill the demand, they used to harass and torture her. On 02.01.2018, the application under Section 156(3) was allowed, and as per direction of the Magistrate, F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 06/2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 376, 377, 307 IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Said Nagli was registered. Subsequently, after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicants have been summoned. The aforesaid FIR dated 7.1.2018 was challenged by the applicants before this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2961/2018; (Altaf and 6 others v. State of U.P. and others), this Court vide order dated 7.02.2018 stayed the arrest of the remaining petitioners except the petitioner no. 1 (applicant no. 1 herein). Thereafter, in pursuance to the order dated 07.02.2018, applicant no. 1 appeared before the learned trial court and applied for bail, where he was granted bail. The applicant no. 1 is husband, applicant no. 2 is father-in-law and applicant no. 3 is Jeth (brother-in-law), applicant no. 4 is a married sister-in-law, as well as applicant nos. 5, 6, 7 are relatives of the applicant no. 1. The counsel for the applicants further submits that no specific role has been assigned to the applicants for causing injury to the injured nor they have demanded any kind of additional dowry, therefore, no offence under the relevant section is made out against them and the applicants have no motive to cause injury to the daughter of the opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that the other family members are not responsible for the injuries caused to the injured. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He, therefore, submits that the summoning order be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court. The counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of Court to the supplementary affidavit dated 12.10.2025 and submitted the applicants were also summoned under Sections 307, 326-A, 324, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 IPC in Complaint Case No. 192 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 774 of 2018 (Annexure S.A.-3) vider order dated 25.7.2019. It is an admitted fact that no any revision or appeal filed against the order dated 25.7.2019.
5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon some judgements passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682 (para nos. 11, 25, 30), Bhawna Jain v. State of UP and another, 2025 INSC 1217 (para no. 9), Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of UP and Anr. (para no. 20) and Shobhit Kumar Mittal v. State of UP and Anr. (para no. 18).
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application and contended that in the injury report, several injuries including acid burn injuries on both lower limbs, incised would on the right side of the scalp 05 cm. x 0.8 cms x muscle deep, abraded contusions on lower back, both thighs and left shoulder, lacerated wound on left thigh, 04 cm. x 0.6 cm x muscle deep, abrasion from left knee joint have been shown on the body of the victim/ daughter of opposite party no. 2. It is next submitted that the applicant no. 1 and his other family members have badly assaulted the victim through knife and have thrown acid on her. It is further submitted that from the perusal of the injury report which is fatal to the life of the victim, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned proceedings.
7. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
8. Section 482 Cr.P.C. provides that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gourishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588, the Apex Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court.
In Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474, the Apex Court has held that ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under section 482 at an interlocutory stage which after filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, or to delay the trial which enable to win over the witness or may disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of Justice.
In Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781, the Apex Court has held that inherent jurisdiction under section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself.
In Kavita v. State, 2000 Cr LI 315 (Del), the Apex Court has held that he extra-ordinary power under section 482 have to be exercised sparingly and should not be resorted to like remedy of appeal or revision. It is well-settled that the inherent powers under section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute.
It is also settled law that power exercised under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, only 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. 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. 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. [Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]
9. In this case, it is evident from the record that two complaints have been lodged by opposite party no. 2. In this petition, the order dated 19.09.2018 has challenged before this Court. This is a case of acid attack and the medical report submitted by doctor reveals that the injury found on the body of the injured person was from the acid.
10. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.
11. The case laws cited by the learned counsel for the applicants are related to simple matrimonial dispute and property dispute, which are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
12. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgements mentioned above and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the accused pesons. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.
13. Hence, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, the present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.) October 15, 2025 Brijesh