Anjani v. Payal Others), under Sections

Heard Mr. Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 09.07.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.580 of 2023 (Anjani vs. Payal & Others), under Sections 147, 451, 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC, pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.2, District-Ghaziabad. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been summoned in illegal manner without considering the fact that the opposite party no.2 has not been medically examined for the alleged incident, which took place on 04.11.2023 at medical shop of Babloo where Ayush and Sanjay were present, which is clear from the complaint as alleged by the opposite party no.2. He further submits that there is no evidence of the presence of all the applicants, who are 11 in number at the time and place of incident. From the police report as annexed at Page 28 also, it is clear that the present complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 to save her husband. He further submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He, therefore, submits that the summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that an FIR has been lodged by applicant no.1 against relative of opposite party no.2 admitting the incident dated 04.11.2023. The injuries as sustained by mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Devrani) of opposite party no.2 also proves that the incident took place at the time and place as admitted by the applicants by lodging the FIR against the relatives of opposite party no.2. As regards the police report, it is a cross case, wherein the FIR has been lodged by the applicant no.1 against the relatives of opposite party no.2 and the present complaint has been lodged for the same incident on the same date. They further submit that as regards the absence of all the applicants at the time and place of the incident, which is factual question, the same cannot be looked into by this Court sitting in jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to conduct mini trial. They further submit that all the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it can not be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details, which have been touched upon by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Court can not look into the fact as to whether the allegations in the complaint are true or untrue and the same has to be decided by the trial court, thus no interference is required in such cases as the present one. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for the asking. The aforesaid has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "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." The following observations has also been made by the Apex Court in the latest judgment of Ramveer Upadhyay & another vs. State of U.P. & another reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 396. Paragraph no.39 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Atrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence............." In fact while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or while wielding the powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India the quashing of the complaint can be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear recognizing certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present matter does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court, which might justify interference by this Court in order to quash the proceedings. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint case is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. The present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Jitendra/-

Heard Mr. Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 09.07.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.580 of 2023 (Anjani vs. Payal & Others), under Sections 147, 451, 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC, pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.2, District-Ghaziabad. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been summoned in illegal manner without considering the fact that the opposite party no.2 has not been medically examined for the alleged incident, which took place on 04.11.2023 at medical shop of Babloo where Ayush and Sanjay were present, which is clear from the complaint as alleged by the opposite party no.2. He further submits that there is no evidence of the presence of all the applicants, who are 11 in number at the time and place of incident. From the police report as annexed at Page 28 also, it is clear that the present complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 to save her husband. He further submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He, therefore, submits that the summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as counsel for the opposite party no.2 have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that an FIR has been lodged by applicant no.1 against relative of opposite party no.2 admitting the incident dated 04.11.2023. The injuries as sustained by mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Devrani) of opposite party no.2 also proves that the incident took place at the time and place as admitted by the applicants by lodging the FIR against the relatives of opposite party no.2. As regards the police report, it is a cross case, wherein the FIR has been lodged by the applicant no.1 against the relatives of opposite party no.2 and the present complaint has been lodged for the same incident on the same date. They further submit that as regards the absence of all the applicants at the time and place of the incident, which is factual question, the same cannot be looked into by this Court sitting in jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to conduct mini trial. They further submit that all the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it can not be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details, which have been touched upon by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Court can not look into the fact as to whether the allegations in the complaint are true or untrue and the same has to be decided by the trial court, thus no interference is required in such cases as the present one. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for the asking. The aforesaid has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "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." The following observations has also been made by the Apex Court in the latest judgment of Ramveer Upadhyay & another vs. State of U.P. & another reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 396. Paragraph no.39 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Atrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence............." In fact while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or while wielding the powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India the quashing of the complaint can be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear recognizing certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the present matter does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court, which might justify interference by this Court in order to quash the proceedings. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint case is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. The present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Jitendra/-