Allahabad High Court
Rahul @ Nirmal Rai And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 January, 2023
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35146 of 2022 Applicant :- Rahul @ Nirmal Rai And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prasoon Kumar,Sharad Sharma Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and, Shri Gaurav Srivastava, holding brief of learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
Present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 20.04.2022 as well as order dated 05.08.2022 in Complaint Case No. 657 of 2021 (Smt. Puirma Viswas vs Rahul @ Nirmal Rain & Ors.), under Section 354, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Bilaspur, District - Rampur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C., Rampur.
Submission is, the complaint allegations are plainly false and malicious. No such occurrence ever took place. Merely because the wife of the applicant no.1 had earlier lodged the complaint against two brothers-in-law of opposite party no.2 and on that, those accused persons were summoned, present prosecution has been lodged by way of counter blast. Relying on Ahmad Ali Quaraishi vs. State of U.P., (2020) 13 SCC 435, it has been urged, the prosecution lodged against the present applicants is malicious. It should be quashed.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have relied on the complaint allegations as have been supported in the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. to submit, at present, there is nothing to doubt the occurrence.
Though it may be true in certain circumstances, false/malicious prosecution are being now lodged only as a result of earlier prosecution visited upon certain citizens it cannot be laid down as a rule of law - all prosecution lodged subsequent to the earlier prosecution visited on a citizen must be false. The facts of each case would govern the conclusion to be drawn by courts. In that, the stage of the prosecution may also become relevant. At present, the complaint allegations are specific. They appear to be wholly supported by the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Read in that entirety, the ingredients of the offence appear to be made out. No other evidence or material exists as may allow the Court to reach the conclusion that the present prosecution is malicious or false or arising by way of counter blast to the earlier complaint lodged by wife of the applicant no.1.
In view of the above, interference claimed at this stage is declined.
Accordingly, the application is rejected. It is left open to the applicants to avail such other remedies including bail and discharge. Those relief if sought in accordance with law, may be dealt with and decided, on their own merits, as expeditiously as possible, without being prejudiced by any observations made in this order.
Order Date :- 12.1.2023 Prakhar