Jasmin v. Ikram and others), under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:155777 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30338 of 2024 Applicant :- Ikram And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amrendu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard Mr. Amrendu Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Triloki Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the summoning/cognizance order dated 12.08.2024 passed by A.C.J.M.-VIII, Varanasi as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.12268 of 2024 (Jasmin vs. Ikram and others), under Sections 354, 427, 379, 323 I.P.C., Police Station-Jaitpura, District- Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Varanasi. Brief facts of the case are; the complaint has been filed on 30.01.2024 by opposite party no.2, namely, Jasmin Siddiqui against eight persons including the applicants with the allegations that uncle of opposite party no.2, namely, Noor Ali had sold his 1/3 share of the house in question to Ikram without his share being divided. Prior to the sale being done by his uncle, a litigation
Facts
between the parties with respect to partition of the property was filed, which was pending. After purchasing the property in question, the applicants in order to grab the entire house, came to fight and assaulted the opposite party no.2 and also threatened to get them implicated in a false case. It has been further alleged that on 10.01.2024 at about 4 PM the applicants after using abusive language did objectionable act with the family members of opposite party no.2. They also tried to molest the ladies of family of opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 called the police by dialing 1090 but the applicants in collusion with the police personnel got a case lodged against the opposite party no.2. Again on 14.01.2024 at about 10 PM, the applicants with intention to illegally grab the house in question came with iron rod, hammer, danda and knife and tried to disturb the family members of opposite party no.2. They also threw stones with intention to kill the opposite party no.2. The incident continued for a period of three hours, after which the applicants broke the door and entered the house, thus, misbehaving with opposite party no.2 and the ladies of the family and also molested them doing objectionable act. Details of the things as taken away by the applicants and the destruction as they did has been mentioned in the complaint. The opposite party no.2 called the police by dialing 112, 1090. Seeing the police coming, the applicants ran away. The opposite party no.2 and her family members were taken to the police station and were challaned under Sections 107, 116 and 151 Cr.P.C. Though an application was moved before the Police Commissioner, Varanasi but the police did not take any action in both the incidents of 10.01.2024 and 14.01.2024, thus the present complaint was filed. The statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. have been recorded and the applicants have been summoned vide order dated 12.08.2024, hence the present petition.
Legal Reasoning
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 counsels. 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 Attrocities 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 summoning order and the proceedings. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the summoning order dated 12.08.2024 as well as 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 :- 24.9.2024 Rahul.
Arguments
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present case has been filed with false and frivolous allegations due to ulterior motive. He further submits that earlier an FIR was lodged by Faiz Mohammad s/o Late Riyaz Mohammad against Maksood and one unknown person on 10.01.2024 for the incident dated 10.01.2024, thus, in order to wreck vengeance the present case has been lodged to exert pressure upon the applicants. He further submits that Faiz Mohammad who has lodged the FIR, happens to be the tenant of the applicants. As per the police report annexed on page-29, the allegations as made in the complaint by opposite party no.2 have been said to be baseless and incorrect. He further submits that civil dispute is pending between father and uncle of opposite party no.2, thus the applicants, who have purchased the share from uncle of opposite party no.2 have been falsely implicated. He further submits that the incident as detailed in the complaint is false as the opposite party no.2 resides at Bombay. He further submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala-fide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. Several other grounds have been taken on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per records, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon in the affidavit. He further submits that the summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse of the process of Court. Learned A.G.A. for the State on the other hand submits that no documentary proof has been filed to show that Faiz Mohammad is a tenant of the applicants. As regards the suit for partition between father and uncle of opposite party no.2, the applicants cannot be said to be party in the aforesaid litigation, therefore, argument of learned counsel for the applicant that civil litigation is pending, has no legs to stand. The present case cannot be said to be a counterblast of the earlier case lodged by Faiz Mohammad as his name has not been taken in the present case and he has nothing to do with the present complaint. Even if it is presumed that the incident took place on 10.01.2024, for which an FIR has been lodged by Faiz Mohammad and Faiz Mohammad is a tenant of the applicants, the incident is admitted by the applicants for which the complaint has also been lodged, thus, at this stage the Court cannot conduct trial and find as to who is responsible for the aforesaid incident. He further submits that all the other contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. From