Ram Kalp v. Navi Sarvar and Others), under Sections

Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Agrahari, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the process of 82 Cr.P.C. initiated against the applicant on 22.01.2025 and N.B.W. order dated 15.10.2013 and other subsequent N.B.W. orders as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.3404/1995 (Ram Kalp vs. Navi Sarvar and Others), under Sections 325, 326, 394, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Basti, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint has been lodged by the complainant Ram Kalp Chaudhary against three persons namely Navi Sarvar, Sadhu Saran and Ramesh Chandra (applicant) for the offence under Sections 494, 325, 326 and 504 I.P.C. After recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicant has been summoned by order dated 07.06.1996. During the pendency of the complaint case, the complainant expired on 29.09.2019. Till date, no other person has been substituted for pairavi on behalf of the complainant. The co-accused Navi Sarvar and Sadhu Saran have also expired during the pendency of the proceedings of the said case. However, the court below despite the aforesaid has proceeded against the applicant and has initiated proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the complainant as well as the other co-accused persons have expired and no application has been moved as required by the legal heirs of the complainant. He, therefore, submits that the entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as continuance of proceedings against the applicant in such circumstances is nothing but abuse of process of law. Learned A.G.A. for the State on the other hand submits that the aforesaid case is a State case wherein offence under Sections 326 and 394 I.P.C. are involved, therefore, there is no illegality in continuance of proceedings against the applicant and initiation of proceeding under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. He further submits that as per the provisions of Section 249 Cr.P.C., it is the discretion of the court concerned to continue with the proceedings in the absence of complainant. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relates 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 applicant. 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 applicant relates 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 528 BNSS, 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 528 BNSS to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS 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 528 BNSS 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. Needless to say that it is open to the applicant to move an application before the court concerned. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Kalp Nath Singh

Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Agrahari, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the process of 82 Cr.P.C. initiated against the applicant on 22.01.2025 and N.B.W. order dated 15.10.2013 and other subsequent N.B.W. orders as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.3404/1995 (Ram Kalp vs. Navi Sarvar and Others), under Sections 325, 326, 394, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Basti, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint has been lodged by the complainant Ram Kalp Chaudhary against three persons namely Navi Sarvar, Sadhu Saran and Ramesh Chandra (applicant) for the offence under Sections 494, 325, 326 and 504 I.P.C. After recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicant has been summoned by order dated 07.06.1996. During the pendency of the complaint case, the complainant expired on 29.09.2019. Till date, no other person has been substituted for pairavi on behalf of the complainant. The co-accused Navi Sarvar and Sadhu Saran have also expired during the pendency of the proceedings of the said case. However, the court below despite the aforesaid has proceeded against the applicant and has initiated proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the complainant as well as the other co-accused persons have expired and no application has been moved as required by the legal heirs of the complainant. He, therefore, submits that the entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as continuance of proceedings against the applicant in such circumstances is nothing but abuse of process of law. Learned A.G.A. for the State on the other hand submits that the aforesaid case is a State case wherein offence under Sections 326 and 394 I.P.C. are involved, therefore, there is no illegality in continuance of proceedings against the applicant and initiation of proceeding under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. He further submits that as per the provisions of Section 249 Cr.P.C., it is the discretion of the court concerned to continue with the proceedings in the absence of complainant. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relates 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 applicant. 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 applicant relates 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 528 BNSS, 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 528 BNSS to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS 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 528 BNSS 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. Needless to say that it is open to the applicant to move an application before the court concerned. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Kalp Nath Singh