Allahabad High Court
R.K Shukla And Anr. vs The State And Anr. on 24 February, 2020
Author: Harsh Kumar
Bench: Harsh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 11 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 911 of 2012 Applicant :- R.K Shukla And Anr. Opposite Party :- The State And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. L.P Misra,Abhishek Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Anil Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
List revised. No one present for opposite party no.2.
Heard Dr. L.P. Misra, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the impugned orders dated 13.02.2012 and 25.4.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on the application moved by opposite party no.2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which has been treated as a complaint, whereby the cognizance has been taken against the applicants-petitioners under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. as well as for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.2352 of 2011.
Learned counsel for applicants submits that during pendency of application, applicant no.1 has passed away; that opposite party no.2 with ulterior motive to harm and harass applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with absolutely false and incorrect allegations on 5.1.2011 with regard to the alleged incident dated 10.11.2009 and 11.11.2009 on which police report was called from P.S. concerned and despite the report of Police Station about falsity of contents of application, the learned Magistrate treated it as complaint and after following the procedure under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. passed impugned summoning order; that prosecution of applicants for the offences under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. is malicious one; that the real fact is that father of opposite party no.2 was a Class-IV employee of Bappa Shri Narayan Vocational Post Graduate College, Lucknow of which applicant no.2 was the manager; that father of opposite party no.2 being Class-IV employee was alloted a quarter in the premises of college in which by making material alteration without permission of college he converted it into shopping and commercial place with dairy and thereafter also encroached over the adjoining quarter due to which disciplinary action was taken and his services were terminated with initiation of eviction proceedings which have been decided in favour of college though revision is pending before competent court; that feeling aggrieved with the termination of his services the father of opposite party no.2 got filed a false Complaint Case No.74 of 2018 against applicant no.2, the then Manager, Dr. Brij Kishore Dwivedi, the then Principal of College and Chhote Lal, a clerk of Bappa Shri Narayan Vocational Post Graduate College, Lucknow for offences under Sections 323, 380, 504, 506 I.P.C. and thereafter with malafide intentions got moved another application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging F.I.R. against applicants for the alleged incident dated 10.11.2009 or 11.11.2009; that learned C.J.M. acted wrongly and illegally in passing impugned summoning order on frivolous and vexatious complaint even in absence of any injury report; that the allegations about offences U/s 504/506 I.P.C. are ornamental in nature and no offence is made out against applicants; that learned C.J.M. did not apply judicial mind and passed the impugned summoning order dated 13.2.2012 in cyclostyle manner; that no incident was caused by applicants or their associates on 10.11.2009 or 11.11.2011 and neither applicant no.1 (who was posted as senior I.P.S. Officer in Delhi at the relevant time) entered the house of opposite party no.2 with his associates or otherwise nor abused anybody nor committed mar-peet with anybody; that summoning order and proceedings of another Complaint Case No.74 of 2008 and under Sections 323, 380, 504, 506 I.P.C. filed by opposite party no.2 were challenged by applicant no.2 and co-accused persons by filing Criminal Misc. Application No.4016 of 2018 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which was disposed of by a detailed judgment and order dated 16.4.2013 quashing the proceedings of complaint case, holding them to be based on malicious prosecution and amounting to abuse of process of Court, copy filed at R.A.-1; that prosecution of applicants in present complaint is also malicious one in retaliation to the disciplinary action taken resulting in removal of father of opposite party no.2 from services of college; that no plausible reason has been assigned for filing complaint case or moving application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. with inordinate delay of period of more than one year from the alleged incident; that pendency of criminal proceedings against applicant no.2, who is above 80 years old sick person and was Manager of college, are nothing but abuse of process of Court and proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. supporting the impugned summoning order opposed the prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings.
Upon hearing parties' counsel and perusal of record, I find that there is sufficient material on record in support of allegations made by applicants. The another Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.4016 of 2018 moved by applicant no.2 and others against opposite party no.2 for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No.74 of 2008 under Sections 323, 380, 504 & 506 I.P.C. has been decided vide judgment and order dated 16.4.2013 quashing the proceedings and holding in paras 31 & 32 which are as under:-
"31. So far as the factual matrix is concerned, no offence under section 380 IPC is prima facie made out. If the college administration removes the flex board installed without permission of the college administration over the premises belonging to college, no offence said to have been committed.
32. The present prosecution is the outcome of ill will of O.P.No.4 to put pressure upon the college administration to settle the score by illegal means. This prosecution is clearly an abuse of process of court. This criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and 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. The proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice."
The material on record shows that in corroboration of allegations of mar-peet there is no injury report on record and the complainant has failed to prove any prima facie case about the incident dated 10.11.2009 & 11.11.2009 having taken place in the manner mentioned in complaint by applicant no.1 or his associates. It is also clear from the material on record that complaint case has been filed with inordinate delay of around 14 months and contains frivolous, vague and concocted allegations which indicates that complaint has been filed with malafide intention to settle scores with college administration by putting pressure on Manager, the applicant no.2 and his son who has been a senior I.P.S. Officer and had no concern with the college.
In absence of any injury report on record, in view of vague allegations about ornamental offences under sections 504/506 I.P.C. as well as in absence of any evidence of likelihood of breaking of public peace by alleged intentional insult by applicants or of any criminal intimidation by them, no offence U/ss 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. can be said to have been made out against applicants. The prosecution of applicants in complaint case is malicious one without any substance in allegations made in complaint. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has failed to apply its judicial mind in passing the impugned summoning order dated 13.2.2012. Undisputedly there is no injury report on record to corroborate the allegations of mar-peet etc. and the learned C.J.M. has not even considered as to whether there is any prima facie evidence on record in support of the allegations made in complaint or not. The impugned summoning order dated 13.2.2012 has been passed in cyclostyled manner and had C.J.M. applied judicial mind to the facts of the case, it would have rejected complaint U/s 203 Cr.P.C.The another Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.4016 of 2008 between the parties has been decided by detailed order at R.A.-1 quashing proceedings of Complaint Case No.74 of 2008 and I find no good reason to repeat all those facts and grounds which have been mentioned in detail in the judgment and order dated 16.4.2013 at R.A.-1. On similar grounds and for similar reasons the proceedings of complaint case as well as impugned summoning order are liable to be quashed as the proceedings of this complaint case are abuse of process of Court.
In view of the discussions made above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution of surviving applicant no.2 in complaint case in furtherance of impugned summoning order amounts to abuse of process of Court and are liable to be quashed for saving the ends of justice. The application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed and summoning order dated 13.2.2012 as well as the proceedings of Criminal Case No.2352 of 2011 are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.2.2012 as well as proceedings of Criminal Case No.2352 of 2011 are quashed for similar reasons of malicious prosecution as mentioned in the judgment dated 16.4.2013 passed by this Court in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.4016 of 2018, in the matter of Complaint Case No.74 of 2008 between the parties.
Order Date :- 24.2.2020/Kpy