Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

Applicant :- Suryamani Dubey And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kalyan Sundram Srivastava,Satyam Shivam Sundaram Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri S.S.S. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of impugned summoning order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Court No. 17, Jaunpur as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4448 of 2019, under section 328 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur, Pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Court No. 17, Jaunpur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no. 2 is brother of applicant no. 1, who has filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate- Ist, Court No. 17, Jaunpur on 06.06.2019 against the applicants with the main allegation that applicants have mixed melted mercury in the milk as well as in pulse and served it to opposite party no. 2. The complaint was registered as Case No. 4448 of 2019 and after recording the statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. learned magistrate conducted an inquiry under section 202(1) Cr.P.C. and thereafter, dismissed the complaint vide order dated 10.02.2021, which was challenged by the opposite party no. 2 by way of filing revision before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court allowed the revision vide order dated 18.02.2022 with a direction to the court concerned to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties and also set aside the order dated 10.02.2021. Thereafter, Magistrate reconsider the complaint case and issued summons vide order dated 26.07.2022. He further submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is a sheer abuse of the process of the law, as the summoning order has been passed without issuing notice, therefore, the entire proceedings relating to the complaint case be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application and contended that the statement of witnesses corroborates the prosecution story. It is further submitted that the Court below has rightly summoned the applicants and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings.

5. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines under which circumstances the Court should, in its inherent power, entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The guidelines are as follows:- "(i) 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. (ii) 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. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. (v) 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. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (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 Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafides 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."

7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, 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 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgements mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicants. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.

9. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Bhanu

Applicant :- Suryamani Dubey And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kalyan Sundram Srivastava,Satyam Shivam Sundaram Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri S.S.S. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of impugned summoning order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Court No. 17, Jaunpur as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4448 of 2019, under section 328 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur, Pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Court No. 17, Jaunpur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no. 2 is brother of applicant no. 1, who has filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate- Ist, Court No. 17, Jaunpur on 06.06.2019 against the applicants with the main allegation that applicants have mixed melted mercury in the milk as well as in pulse and served it to opposite party no. 2. The complaint was registered as Case No. 4448 of 2019 and after recording the statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. learned magistrate conducted an inquiry under section 202(1) Cr.P.C. and thereafter, dismissed the complaint vide order dated 10.02.2021, which was challenged by the opposite party no. 2 by way of filing revision before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court allowed the revision vide order dated 18.02.2022 with a direction to the court concerned to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties and also set aside the order dated 10.02.2021. Thereafter, Magistrate reconsider the complaint case and issued summons vide order dated 26.07.2022. He further submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is a sheer abuse of the process of the law, as the summoning order has been passed without issuing notice, therefore, the entire proceedings relating to the complaint case be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application and contended that the statement of witnesses corroborates the prosecution story. It is further submitted that the Court below has rightly summoned the applicants and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings.

5. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines under which circumstances the Court should, in its inherent power, entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The guidelines are as follows:- "(i) 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. (ii) 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. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. (v) 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. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (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 Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafides 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."

7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, 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 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgements mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicants. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.

9. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Bhanu