Allahabad High Court
Kismati And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 11 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH AFR Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2995 Court No. - 27 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23 of 2024 Applicant :- Kismati And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Tiwari,Deepranjan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.
1. Heard Sri Aditya Tiwari, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anant Pratap Singh, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 20685 of 2022 "Mayaram v. Rajveer Yadav & Others", arising out of the charge sheet Case Crime/FIR No. 179/2021 under Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC, and final report dated 27.12.2021, Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/FTC/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar including the impugned summoning order dated 20.10.2023.
3. The FIR lodged on 26.11.2021 in furtherance of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed on 30.06.2021 against 5 persons, including the applicants, alleged that a property dispute is going on between the informant and the applicant no. 2, due to which reason the accused persons came to the informant's house and started abusing him. When the informant opposed it, on the exhortation of the applicant nos. 1 and 4, the applicant no. 2 pushed the informant to the ground and he and another accused Beenu Yadav had beaten him with kicks and fists. When the informant's daughter-in-law tried to save him, the accused persons beaten her also and snatched away a chain from her neck. The FIR further stated that the informant had called the Police by dialing 112. The police had taken both the parties to the police station but neither the informant's report was registered, nor was he and his daughter-in-law examined medically. On 15.05.2021, the informant got himself and his daughter-in-law medically examined and thereafter he sent an application to the Superintendent f Police through registered post and when no action was taken on it, he filed the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
4. The medico-legal examination report of the informant mentions complaint of pain over chest and a contusion over left side of back of scapula. The medico legal examination report of the informant's daughter-in-law Sarita Pal mentions a contusion on right side of her face and complaint of pain.
5. The injured persons had supported the FIR allegations in their statements recorded during investigation. However, some villagers had stated that no such incident had taken place. The investigating officer had submitted a final report on 27.12.2021. The informant filed a protest petition. The same was allowed and was treated as a complaint. Statements were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Besides the injured persons, an independent person has also given statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in support of the complaint allegations. Thereafter the applicants have been summoned to face the trial.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR has been lodged on false allegations because of a property dispute between the parties and the proceedings have been maliciously instituted. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"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 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.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
7. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present case is covered by clauses (3) and (7) of para 102.
8. The FIR in the present case categorically states that the accused persons had abused and beaten up the informant and his daughter-in-law, both of whom had suffered injuries in the incident. The FIR also alleges that the accused persons had snatched away a chain from the neck of the informant's daughter-in-law. The uncontroverted allegations clearly make out commission of cognizable offences by the accused persons. The injured person and an independent witness have supported the allegations in their statements recorded by the trial Court under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The allegations are also supported by the medico-legal examination report of the complainant and his daughter-in-law. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the present case is covered by clause (3) of para 102 of Bhajan Lal's case, is entirely misconceived and the same is accordingly turned down.
9. The next submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the proceedings have been instituted maliciously because of a property dispute between the parties. He has submitted that the reason for false implication is that Saurabh Pal, son of the informant Maya Ram Pal had made an application for claiming a right of way from the land recorded in the name of the applicant no. 1 - Kismati, which claim was rejected by means of an order dated 09.12.2020. Thereafter, he persisted with this claim, which was again rejected on 21.12.2020 and 29.01.2021. Thereafter the applicant no. 1 had filed a suit against the informant and other persons for perpetual injunction which has been registered as Suit No. 571 of 2020 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar and the FIR has been lodged maliciously due to the aforesaid civil dispute.
10. As has been held in Bhajan Lal (Supra), the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and this court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint.
11. In Central Bureau of Investigation versus Aryan Singh etc., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal filed against a judgment and order by which the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., had quashed the criminal proceedings. Initially, the accused Aryan Singh was not named in the FIR. However, after conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the said Aryan Singh also and he was included as one of the accused. The High Court had quashed the entire criminal proceedings by observing that the allegations/charges against the accused had not been proved and that the prosecution was malicious. Allowing the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -
"10. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not".
12. In Aryan Singh (Supra), the High Court had also recorded that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings was malicious. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -
"the High Court has erred in observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material collected during the course of the investigation, which warranted the accused to be tried."
13. In the present case, when there is prima facie material to establish the allegations and a care is made out for trial of the accused persons, the proceedings cannot be quashed holding the same to have been instituted maliciously. The property dispute between the parties can be a cause for false implication of the applicants but at the same time it can also be a motive for commission of the offence. When the informant and his daughter-in-law have suffered injuries in the incident and they have supported the FIR allegations by their statements, which is also supported by the medico legal examination report and the statement of an independent witness, there is sufficient evidence for prosecution of the applicants and it cannot be said at this stage that the proceedings are liable to be quashed for the reason that the same have been maliciously instituted. Whether the proceedings have been instituted maliciously, is a question that can only be decided after the parties adduce evidence in support of their respective cases.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the application lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
(Subhash Vidyarthi J) Order Date : 11.01.2024 Pradeep/-