Allahabad High Court
Maboob Raza vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 July, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:110902 Reserved on : 04.07.2024 Delivered on : 09.07.2024 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 500 of 2020 Applicant :- Maboob Raza Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava,Shamshuddin Khan (S U Khan) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satya Narayan Gupta Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satya Narayan Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The applicant before this Court is a Sub-Inspector and he is aggrieved by impugned order dated 24.05.2019 passed in complaint case No.64 of 2018 in S.S.T. No.50 of 2019 (Moti Lal Vs. Mabood Raza) under Sections 394, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Mahrauni, District- Lalitpur, whereby he has been summoned to face trial under Sections 394, 504 and 506 I.P.C. by way of an order passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
3. This Court has passed following order on 13.01.2020 :-
"This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the applicant, Mabood Raza, with a prayer for setting aside impugned summoning order, dated 24.5.2019, passed in Complaint Case No.64 of 2018 (S.S.T. No.50 of 2019), Moti Lal vs. Mabood Raza, under Sections-394, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station-Mahrauni, District-Lalitpur, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A), Lalitpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant had been the Incharge of a Police Out Post, where, a cross case, in the form of a Non -Cognizable Report, was registered, wherein, complainant was one party. Applicant made an enquiry and, thereby, took action against both sides, under Section 117/116 of Cr.P.C., which furiated complainant and he made a complaint, under Jan Sunvai Karyakram at Chief Minister's Office, wherein, a Deputy Superintendent of Police made an eqnuiry and enquiry report concluded that the accusation was false. Subsequently, within two months, this false complaint was got lodged, wherein, complainant and his two daughters-in-law were examined and the impugned summoning order was passed. It is a false, fictitious and malicious prosecution.
Matter requires hearing.
Issue notice to Opposite party no.2.
Notice on behalf of State has been accepted by learned AGA.
Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List in week commencing 23rd March, 2020.
Till next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant, pursuant to impugned summoning order, dated 24.5.2019, passed in Complaint Case No.64 of 2018 (S.S.T. No.50 of 2019), Moti Lal vs. Mabood Raza, under Sections-394, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station-Mahrauni, District-Lalitpur, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A), Lalitpur."
4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant is a Police Officer who credits a clear image and always discharge his duties according to law. He got bravery awards also. There was a dispute between the complainant side with some other persons and for that cross FIR were lodged. The applicant in order to maintain law and order conduct proceedings under Section 107/11 against both parties. In another case, the other party lodged an FIR against close relatives of complainant. It was also investigated by present applicant and a charge-sheet was submitted under lesser offences.
5. The complainant being aggrieved that a charge-sheet submitted against his close relatives, filed a complaint before Chief Minister against present applicant, making various allegations including demand of bribery. The said complaint was investigated but it was found false.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel further submitted that in order to put pressure on applicant, complainant filed a criminal complaint against applicant and two unknown persons that they have committed offence under Sections 394, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., the same was considered as a complaint case and statements of complainant and witnesses are recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., for reference statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and impugned order in its entirety are reproduced hereinafter :-
"बयान अन्तर्गत धारा 200 सी०आर०पी०सी० दिनाँक- 04.01.2019 " नाम मोती लाल पुत्र भगुन्ता उम्र 60 वर्ष पेशा खेती निवासी ग्राम दरौना थाना महरौनी, जिला- ललितपुर शपथ पर कथन किया कि दिनांक 04.10.2018 की बात है समय करीब 3 बजे मैने भारतीय स्टेट बैंक महरौनी से आठ हजार रूपये खाद वीज के लिये निकाले थे। सायकिल से अपने ग्राम दरौना जा रहा था जैसे ही मै छायन .... लटकन्जूई नाला के पास करीब 4 बजे शाम पहुँचा तो वहाँ पहले से मौजूद माबूद रजा एस०आई० एवं दो अज्ञात लोग जिनके हाथो मे कुल्हाडी फरसा था माबूद रजा ने मुझे माँ बहनो की गालियां दी व सायकिल से नीचे गिरा दिया तथा मेरी कनपटी पर रिवाल्वर लगा दी तथा मेरी कमीज की दायी जेब से 200 /रूपये के चालीस नोट जबरन लूट लिये जो कुल 8000/- रूपये थे तथा तीनो लोग मेरी लात घूसो से मेरी मारपीट करने लगा उसी समय उदय, श्रीमती गिरजा एवं श्रीमती रतीबाई आ गये जिन्होने बीच बचाव किया उक्त लोग कहते गये कि थाने में रिपोर्ट तो जान से मार डालेगे उक्त घटना की सूचना मैने पुलिस अधीक्षक महोदय को स्वयं उपस्थित होकर व जरिये डाक रजिस्ट्री प्रार्थना पत्र प्रेषित किया था जब कोई कार्यवाही नही हुयी तो यह वाद न्यायालय में दायर किया है।"
" P.W.-2/1 202 Cr.P.C.
20.01.2019 नाम श्रीमती रतीबाई पत्नी सीताराम उम्र 40 साल पेशा गृहणी निवासी ग्राम दरौना थाना महरौली जिला ललितपुर शपथ पर बयान किया कि दिनांक 10.04.2018 को मैं अपने गाँव दरौना से महरौली जा रही थी कि जैसे ही समय चार बजे दायन व. ..लटकनपुर के वीच में नाले पर समय करीब 4 बजे पहुंची तो देखा कि माबूद रजा व उनके साथ दो अज्ञात व्यक्ति मोतीलाल को मॉ बहन की बुरी बुरी गालिया दे रहे थे तथा कनपटी पर सर्विस रिवाल्वर लगाये है दो अज्ञात लोग मार पीट कर रहे थे उधर लोगो ने मोतीलाल की कमीज की जेब से 8 हजार रूपये (200 रूपये के चालीस नोट) लूट लिये। उसी समय उदयचन्द गिरजा देवी भी आ गये यह लोग भी मोटर सायकिल पर थे जिन्होने घटना देखी व वीच बचाव किया तो उक्त माबूद रजा ने रिपोर्ट करने पर जॉन से मारने की धमकी दी तथा मडवारा की ओर चले गये । "
P.W.-1 202 Cr.P.C.
20.01.2019 " नाम श्रीमती गिरजापत्नी ब्रजलाल निवासी ..... थाना महरौली उम्र 40 वर्ष पेशा गृहणी ने सशपथ बयान किया कि आज से 05 माह पहले की बात है दिन के 3 बजे थे मेरे ससुर भारतीय स्टेट बैंक महरानी से खेत के बीज हेतु 08 हजार रूपये निकाल कर दरांना थाना महरानी जा रहे थे समय करीब 04 बजे शाम को मेरे... माबूद खॉ एस०आई० अपने दो अज्ञात साथियो के साथ था दो अज्ञात व्यक्ति हाथ में कुल्हाडी फरसा लिये थे तीनो लोगो ने मेरे ससुर के नीचे गिरा दिया और माबूद ने मेरे ससुर के कनपटी पर बन्दुक लगा कर जबरदस्ती मार कर दायी जेब से 08 हजार रूपये लूट लिये उक्त तीनो लोगो ने मारपीट की उक्त तीनो लोगो ने लात घूसों से मारपीट की उक्त घटना के मेरे अलावा उदय चन्द एवं .... ने बीच बचाव किया और घटना देखी, उक्त लोग जान से मारने की धमकी देते हुए अपनी मोटर सायकिल से चले गये।"
Summoning order dated 24.05.2019 24-05-2019 पत्रावली आदेश हेतु पेश हुई। तलवी के बिन्दु पर परिवादी के विद्वान अधिवक्ता की बहस पूर्व में ही सुनी जा चुकी है पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। परिवादपत्र के अनुसार परिवादी के कथन संक्षेप में इस प्रकार है कि परिवादी दिनांक 4-10-18 को तीन बजे दिन भारतीय स्टेट बैंक महरौनी से आठ हजार रूपया खाद बीज के लिए निकाले और अपने गांव दरौना साइकिल से जा रहा था कि जैसे ही परिवादी छायन / खिरिया लटकनजू के बीच में नाला के पास समय करीब 4.00 बजे पहुंचा तो वहां पहले से मौजूद माबूद रजा मिले उनके साथ दो अज्ञात साथी जिनके हाथों में कुल्हाडी एवं फर्सा थे। उक्त लोगों ने परिवादी की साइकिल रोक ली और मां बहिनों की गालियां देते हुए साइकिल से नीचे गिरा दिया और माबूद रजा ने परिवादी के कनपटी पर अपनी रिवाल्वर लगा दी और जबरन कमीज की दायी जेब से दी सौ रूपये के चालीस नोट जो कि आठ सौ रूपये थे लूट लिए और लात घूसों से मारपीट करने लगे। उसी समय उदयचन्द, गिरजा, श्रीमती रतीवाई अा गये और घटना देखी और बीच बचाव किया तो कहने लगे कि यदि रिपोर्ट की तो जान से खत्म कर देगे। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से विदित होता है कि परिवादी मोतीलाल के कथन अन्तर्गत धारा 200 दंप्रसं तथा साक्षीगण पी.डब्लू. 1 श्रीमती गिरिजा एवं पी. डब्लू. 2 रतीवाई के कथन अन्तर्गत धारा 202 दंप्रसं अभिलिखित किये गये है। परिवादी मोतीलाल ने अन्तर्गत धारा 200 दंप्रसं में कथन किया है कि दिनांक 04-10-18 की बात है। समय करीब तीन बजे मैंने भारतीय स्टेट बैंक महरौनी से आठ हजार रूपये खाद बीज के लिए निकाले थे। साइकिल से अपने ग्राम दरौनी जा रहा था जैसे ही में छायन खिरिया लटकन्जू के नाला के पास करीब चार बजे शाम पहुंचा तो वहां पहले से मौजूद माबूद रजा एस.आई.एवं दो अज्ञात लोग जिनके हाथों में कुल्हाडी फरसा थे। माबूद रजा ने मुझे मां बहनो की गालियां दी व साइकिल से नीचे गिरा दिया तथा मेरी कनपटी पर रिवाल्वर लगा दी, तथा मेरी कमीज की जेब से दो सौ रूपये के चालीस नोट जबरन लूट लिए जो कुल आठ हजार रूपये थे। तथा तीनो लोग मेरी लात घूसों से मारपीट करने लगे। उसी समय उदयचन्द, श्रीमती गिरजा एवं श्रीमती रतीवाई आ गयी जिन्होने बीच बचाव किया। उक्त लोग कहते गये कि थाने में रिपोर्ट की तो जान से मार डालेगे।
इसी तरह के कथन साक्षी पी.डब्लू. 1 गिरजा तथा पी.डब्लू. 2 श्रीमती रतीवाई के द्वारा भी किए गये हैं। परिवादी एवं साक्षीगण द्वारा न्यायालय के समक्ष शपथ पर किये गये कथनों के आधार पर उपरोक्त अभियुक्त को विचारण हेतु तलब किए जाने का प्रथम दृष्टया पर्याप्त आधार है।
आदेश अतः अभियुक्त माबूद रजा को धारा 394,504 व 506 भादंसं के अपराध के विचारण हेतु सात दिवस में पैरवी करने पर जारेये समन तलब किया जाता है। वादी सूची गवाहान दाखिल करे।
प्रकरण को विशेष सत्र परीक्षण के रूप में पंजीकृत किया जाय। पत्रावली वास्ते उपस्थिति अभियुक्त उपरोक्त दिनांक 17-06-19 को प्रेश हो।
7. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that it is a case of malicious proceedings. The applicant who has discharged his duties as a Police Officer and conducted the FIR lodged against close relatives of complainant in accordance with law has been now penalized by initiation of criminal proceedings at behest of the complaint. He further submitted that even considering the statements referred above, the offences are not made out.
8. The above submissions are opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that learned Trial Court has rightly on basis of statements and material, issued summon against applicant.
9. Before adverting to rival submissions, the details of contents of Section 394 I.P.C. is reproduced hereinafter :-
"394: Voluntarily causing hurt in commiting robbery -If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
10. The facts of the case as narrated above indicates that applicant, a Police Officer has conducted investigation in cases where the complainant or their close relatives were involved. It is not on record whether the investigation has been challenged at the instance of complainant or if challenged but their outcome is not on record. The Court firstly considered whether on basis of material available i.e. statements recorded during proceedings for offences under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. are made out. In this regard, a judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs. State of U.P. And Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 and relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinafter: -
"SECTIONS 503, 504 AND 506 OF THE IPC
24. Chapter XXII of the IPC relates to Criminal Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance. Section 503 reads thus:--
"Section 503. Criminal intimidation. --Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.--A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.
Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to resist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation."
25. Section 504 reads thus:--
"Section 504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.--Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
26. Section 506 reads thus:--
"Section 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation. --Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
27. An offence under Section 503 has following essentials:--
1) Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or
(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
2) The threat must be with intent;
(i) to cause alarm to that person; or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or
(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
28. Section 504 of the IPC contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive language is used intentionally and is of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of events lead the person insulted to break the peace or to commit an offence under the law, the case is not taken away from the purview of the Section merely because the insulted person did not actually break the peace or commit any offence having exercised selfcontrol or having been subjected to abject terror by the offender. In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant.
29. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant. In King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:--
"To constitute an offence under Section 504, I.P.C. it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the other party to lose his temper and say or do something violent. Public peace can be broken by angry words as well as deeds."
(Emphasis supplied)
30. A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant.
31. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not under Section 504 of the IPC. The allegations with respect to the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC can also be looked at from a different perspective. In the FIR, all that the first informant has stated is that abusive language was used by the accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the FIR. One of the essential elements, as discussed above, constituting an offence under Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present."
11. The only reference in regard to threat in the statements is that applicant has threaten that in case, the alleged occurrence is reported, they will face dire consequences, however, in view of Mohammad Wajid (supra), it would not fall within parameters of Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. either as there must be an intent that insult has element of being likely that insulted person to commit a breach of peace as well as there is no evidence to cause alarm to complainant, therefore, on basis of statements no offence is made out under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C.
12. Now the Court proceeded to consider whether any offence is made out under Section 394 I.P.C. as well as whether it is a malicious proceeding. As referred above Section 394 I.P.C. provides punishment of voluntary causing hurt during committing robbery though there is an averment that applicant and two unknown persons may have assaulted the complainant side, but there is no injury report on record, therefore, Section 394 I.P.C. is not made out.
13. Further Court considers that other two persons were not identified, even no attempt was made for their identification. In the aforesaid circumstances, considering that major part of story is considered to be false, therefore, only on basis that there is allegation of threat, criminal proceeding could not be allowed to continue since there are material before this Court as referred above that it is very likely that complainant has initiated proceedings against applicant, a Police Officer on false averments and on basis of above discussion the present proceedings are malicious in the nature.
14. The outcome of above discussion is that facts of presesnt case squarely falls within judgment passed by Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 and for reference para 102(7) of Bhajan Lal (supra) is reproduced hereinafter:
"(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."
15. In the aforesaid circumstances, by invoking inherent power criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance of complaint case No.64 of 2018 in S.S.T. No.50 of 2019 (Moti Lal Vs. Mabood Raza) under Section 394, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Mahrauni, District- Lalitput is set aside including the summoning order dated 24.05.2019. Accordingly, application is allowed.
Order Date :- 09.07.2024 P. Pandey