Allahabad High Court
Ramprakash Gupta And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 August, 2025
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138911 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29765 of 2025 Applicant :- Ramprakash Gupta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 B.N.S.S. for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including charge-sheet dated 30.08.2021 as well as cognizance order dated 16.08.2022 in Case No.138448 of 2022 (State vs. Ramprakash Gupta and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.144 of 2021 under Sections 420, 384, 506, 411, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Bithoor, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanpur Nagar.
3. As per F.I.R. version, approximately five months ago, while the respondent no.2 (first informant) was going to meet her mother for her personal work, her bag fell from the scooty on the way, consequently, she lodged an online complaint. Thereafter, she was greatly upset due to the said incident inasmuch as said bag contained of utmost important documents relating to her land and ongoing ligation. About one month ago, from the date of filing the F.I.R., she received a call on her mobile no.63xxxxxxxx from mobile no.93xxxxxxxx, from unknown person who told her that he was in possession of the said documents and was aware of their importance. He demanded Rs.10 lakhs from the first informant in lieu of returning the said bag, otherwise he would send the documents to officers and journalists for misuse. The person who has called the first informant was attempting to extort Rs.10 lakhs from her by cheating and blackmailing. On 25.05.2021, since morning, he has been repeatedly calling and threatening her that if the money is not paid today, he will handover the documents to the journalists and the same will not be good for her. He threatened the first informant that she has to come to the place where he calls her. Further allegation has been made that he has been persistently harassing the first informant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants, while assailing the contents of the F.I.R., has put a counter story at the behest of the present applicants that, in fact, the applicant no.1 is the sufferer because money lent to the husband of the first informant has not been returned by him. Applicants came with the plea that the applicant no.1 is the practicing Advocate in the District Court, Kanpur Nagar, applicant no.2 is the driver and the applicant no.3 is the staff of applicant no.1. The husband of the first informant and the applicant no.1 are known to each other and they were good friends. While the husband of the first informant, namely, Rajesh Yadav, was in need of money, the applicant no.1 has given him Rs.18 lakhs with the promise that he will return the same within three years. While he failed to fulfill his promise, Rajesh Yadav came in the beginning of the year 2020 with a bag containing some valuable documents and handed over the same to the applicant no.1 to keep the bag as a surety until he returns the money lent to him. After much pressure, Rajesh Yadav has returned Rs.8 lakhs to the applicant no.1 in the year 2020. However, in the commencing year of 2021, he was incarcerated under some cognizable offence. As soon as the applicant no.1 came to know this fact, he immediately called to the first informant on her mobile no.63xxxxxxxx and demanded the rest amount back which was lent to her husband. It is further submitted that with intent to avoid return of the lent money, the first informant, in collusion with her husband, has instituted a false and malicious prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicants has emphasized on a delayed F.I.R. and submitted that it is highly improbable that a person whose extremely important documents were missing would remain silent for five months and make no attempt to ascertain the outcome of online complaint, if any, filed on his behalf. Even, she was kept silent for a month from the date she had received a call on her mobile phone. It is also submitted that in the backdrop of these facts, no case is made out against the present applicants for the commission of the offence for which they have been arraigned in the charge-sheet. Thus, instant application is liable to be allowed and the cognizance order, charge-sheet and the entire criminal proceedings may be quashed being unwarranted under the law and cryptic.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and contended that in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the material collected by the Investigating Officer, prima facie, the complicity of the present applicants in the commission of crime cannot be ruled out. He has emphasized that the bag has been recovered from the possession of applicant no.1. It is next contended that counter story put forward by the applicant no.1 cannot be examined at this stage. Instant application is liable to be dismissed being misconceived and devoid of merits.
6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned A.G.A. and upon perusal of record, it manifests that the first informant has unequivocally mentioned her plight in the F.I.R. and corroborated the same with her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The relevant documents, viz; agreement to sell, income tax notice etc. belonging to the first informant and her husband have been recovered from the possession of the present applicants, which is evident from the recovery memo (Annexure-3). The police party laid an ambush and arrested the accused (applicant herein), along with the missing document, on the basis of information received from the first informant (respondent no.2). Counter story, with regards to the previous financial transaction between the applicant no.1 and the husband of the first informant, in the nature of loan, if any, as explained by the applicants before this court in their defence, cannot be examined at this juncture. Contents of the F.I.R., statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the recovery memo, prima facie, makes out a case against the present applicants and their involvement in the commission of crime cannot be ruled out. Admittedly, one of the phone number, which is mentioned in the F.I.R., belongs to the applicant no.1.
7. 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 orther for the purposes of securing the ends of justice, therefore, there is no justification to exercise inherent power of this Court under Section 528 B.N.S.S. Record reveals that learned counsel for the applicants has raised disputed question of fact qua involvement of present applicants 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 CrPC 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 through a proper application for the said purpose and they are 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 applicants 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 made out to consider the merits of the instant case. As such, prayer of quashing as made in instant application is hereby refused.
18. Resultantly, instant application, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 14.8.2025 VR