Allahabad High Court
Smt. Arti Singhal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 November, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:209792
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18922 of 2021
Smt. Arti Singhal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
A.C.Srivastava, Alok Kumar Singh, Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
, Dr. Neel Kamal Sharma, G.A.
Court No. - 74
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 19.03.2021 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No.11004 of 2020, under sections 499, 500 I.P.C., P.S. Nauchandi, District Meerut, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is Bhabhi of the opposite party no.2. Marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the brother of the opposite party no.2 in the year 2010. Thereafter, on account of matrimonial disputes after 11 years, both are started living separately. Divorce petition was filed and that was allowed. Opposite party no.2 filed a complaint with malice intention against the applicant as opposite party no.2 and his brother were engaged in manufacturing of ghee from the milk of the cows and had obtained license from the State of U.P. Opposite party no.2 having good reputation in the society. The applicant is resident of Ghaziabad, had continuously sent fake complaints to the authorities of State and on the twitter account by alleging that the opposite party no.2 has been engaged in manufacturing adulterated ghee and on her complaint several authorities visited his house which became a cause of defamation. On 04.09.2020 applicant went to the house of the complainant and threatened to all the family members to send jail against which opposite party no.2 made a complaint on a police number 112 and all this has badly affected the business of opposite party no.2. Trial court recorded the statement of complainant and two witnesses under sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, by order dated 19.03.2021 learned court issued summons against the applicant under section 500 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegation alleged in the complaint is not supported by any material evidence and no offence under section 500 I.P.C. is made out. He next submitted that present proceeding and allegation alleged in the FIR prima-facie discloses no offence against the applicant and as per as provision provided under section 499 I.P.C., Exception 9 barred the proceeding against the applicant. The contents of complaint, statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses statements have not contained any ingredients of Section 499 I.P.C. Allegations have been levelled on account of counterblast or only to harass the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the statement of the witnesses who are interested witnesses, no reliance can be placed upon them. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that complaint lodged by opposite party no.2 do not fulfil the ingredients of Section 499 I.P.C. Cognizance and summoning by learned magistrate is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance over the judgment passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ashok Kumar Gogia vs. State of Haryana and another; 2015 Law Suit (P& H) 1070 and judgment passed by Madras High Court in J.Gnana Kumar vs. Joy Kanmani decided on 16th November, 2007.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the argument raised by applicant's counsel. Learned counsel for the informant has placed reliance upon coordinate Bench of this Court in Application u/s 482 No.10431 of 2021 (Rajesh Churiwala vs. State of U.P. and another) decided on 14.07.2021 and has placed reliance upon Paras 13 & 14 of the said judgment. The same are being quoted below:-
"13. The question whether or not the imputation was made for public good would therefore be a question of fact which would be required to be proved by the accused to seek the benefit of the first exception to Section 499. The defence in this regard being a question of fact, can be decided during trial only and the benefit of the first exception cannot be claimed at the stage of issuance of summons.
14. It is well settled that at the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. At this stage, there is no requirement to enter into the detailed factual aspects or on the merits or demerits of the case."
6. Learned counsel for the informant next submitted that on perusal of complaint, statement recorded under sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. prima-facie discloses offence under aforesaid section is made out against the applicant and proceeding under challenge herein is on the basis of complaint and on the submission of the applicant that Exception 9 of Section 499 I.P.C. that proceeding is illegal. Learned counsel for the informant next submits that all submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant are disputed questions of fact which can be examined by the trial court and trial court has also considered the application of Exception 9 provided under section 499 I.P.C. Present application is very much supported by evidence which require proper adjudication.
7. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that The impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed by this Court.the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage.
8. Considering the argument raised by applicants' counsel and perused the record, it is evident that prima facie offence is made out. The Apex Court in its judgment passed in the case of Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642, para 6 and 7 are quoted herein below:-
"6. Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at the stage of such trial.
7. Such an exercise, in our considered view, is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C."
9. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
10. Considered the arguments raised by both the counsels. It is alleged in the complaint that the applicant who is accused in the present case, intentionally made statement to down the reputation of the complainant in the society. The contents prima-facie discloses the offence, imputation made with intention to tarnish the reputation of the applicant, trial court after examining material evidence has rightly summoned the applicants in the present case. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has placed reliance over the judgment passed by this Court in Application u/s 482 No.10431 of 2021 (Rajesh Churiwala vs. State of U.P. and another) in which the coordinate Bench has held in Para-14 of the judgment that it is well settled that at the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and only to be prima-facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. At this stage, there is no requirement to enter into the detailed factual aspects or on the merits or demerits of the case. The Apex Court in various judgments has held that examination of factual facts, relate to trial court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments has held that Court was sitting in 482 jurisdiction should avoid examining the facts related dispute.
11. No interference is warranted. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Deepak Verma,J.) November 24, 2025 SKD