Allahabad High Court
Nisar Ahmad And Another vs State Of Up Through Principal Secretary ... on 29 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:31113
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30 of 2022
Nisar Ahmad And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of Up Through Principal Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat U.P Lucknow And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Anuj Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 15
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1. However, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 in spite of service of notice.
2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the Complaint Case No. 6702/2016 as well as summoning order dated 20.10.2018 passed by A.C.J.M. 1st District Sitapur, while taking cognizance in the matter on 20.10.2018 in Complaint Case No. 6702/2016 (Smt. Ashiya Versus Nisar Ahmad and others) under Section 376-D IPC, Police Station Sadarpur, District Sitapur, the petitioners were summoned.
3. It is the case of the applicants that the opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as complaint case against the applicants and in compliant she has stated that on 01.08.2016 at 01.00 a.m. applicants no.1 and 2 entered into the house of opposite party no.2 and raped her but she was silent, however, she further stated that on 05.08.2016 at 11.00 a.m. the applicants came to her house and threw the all things of home and they destroyed the house of opposite party no.2 and threatened to kill her. On the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. a report was called for from the concerned Police Station and police submitted his report that Ashraf and the husband of complainant is real brother and they have dispute regarding the land. It has further been mentioned in the report that before this application given by opposite party no.2, Haseebun w/o applicant no.1 had lodged a report, which was registered at N.C. R. No. 197/2016 under Sections 323, 504 IPC and opposite party no.2 was also named and the police had challanned both the parties under Sections 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C. on 31.07.2016. After recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the applicants have been summoned.
4. It is case of the applicants that there was a report lodged by the wife of applicant no.1, Haseebun, which was registered at N.C. R. No. 197/2016 under Sections 323, 504 IPC, in which the opposite party no.2 was also named. The said report was lodged on 31.7.2016 i.e. prior to the present incident. In the said case both the parties were challanned under Sections 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C. and out of retaliation the present case has been filed against the applicants by way of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the date of the incident is shown i.e. 1.8.2016 but she was silent and did not lodge any FIR, rather she has stated in the complaint that on 05.08.2016 her house was demolished by the applicants, thereafter she has given application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Once there is such heinous crime of rape, how for such long span of time she was silent.
5. It has also been submitted by counsel for the applicants that husband of opposite party no.2 was in need of money and he sold his share to the applicants. He has also invited the attention of this Court towards the sale letter dated 3.5.2015 (unregistered), which indicates that Rs. 86,000/- was given to the husband of opposite party no.2 and the land was also not sold and the possession was not given. He has submitted that the said fact was investigated by the police in pursuance of direction given by learned Magistrate in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is also submitted by counsel for the applicants that the opposite party no.2 did not get herself physically examined.
6. Learned AGA on the other hand submitted that from perusal of the complaint as well as the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the allegation of rape has been made out against the applicants, therefore, summons at this stage may not be interfered and the application is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
8. After going through the record as well as hearing of both the parties, one fact has come before the court that on 30.7.2016 the wife of the applicant no.1 had lodged N.C. R. No. 197/2016 under Sections 323, 504 IPC. Both the parties were challanned by the police on 31.07.2016 and police has also given report to that effect. In case any rape was committed by the applicants on 01.08.2016, no report was lodged by opposite party no.2 and she moved application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., in which she has stated that on 01.08.2016 her house was demolished, thus it is evident that she was silent ever the incident of rape, which allegedly occurred on 01.08.2016. It appears that she has given seriousness to the case out of retaliation because both the parties were challanned earlier by the police under Sections 151, 107,116 Cr.P.C. and the applicant no.1 is Jeth of opposite party no.2, it is evident that she has admitted that the incident of rape had taken place on 01.08.2016 and she was silent. She has stated that her house was demolished on 5.8.2016 then she tried to report the case before the Higher Authority.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again consistently held that using legal proceedings, such as criminal complaints to harass or pressure on opposing party constitutes an abuse of the legal process. In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the well noted judgement in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has delineated seven categories of cases, particularly category no.7, wherein such extraordinary jurisdiction may be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. For ready reference, the relevant extract of the said judgement is quoted below:-
"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 have given 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 bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or 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 to private and personal grudge." (Emphasis supplied)
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salib Vs. State of U.P., (2023) 20 SCC 194 again held as under:-
"26. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc. then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, 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 try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution 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 course of investigation."
11. Upon a cumulative consideration of the allegations made in the complaint, evidence placed on record and the attending circumstances enumerated above, prima facie, it appears that the present complaint has been filed by opposite party no.2 just to wriggle out from the criminal case, instituted by wife of applicant no.1 and out of retaliation. Therefore, the case of the applicants is squarely covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) and continuance of the impugned proceedings are nothing but an abuse of process of law.
12. Application is accordingly allowed and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.6702 of 2016 as well as summoning order dated 20.10.2018 passed by A.C.J.M. 1st, District Sitapur, while taking cognizance in the matter on 20.10.2018 in Complaint Case No. 6702/2016 (Smt. Ashiya Versus Nisar Ahmad and others), under Section 376-D IPC, Police Station Sadarpur, District Sitapur, are hereby quashed qua the applicants.
(Brij Raj Singh,J.) April 29, 2026 Muk