Rajkumari v. Safi Yadav & Others), CNR No.UPKJ

Heard Mr. Himanshu Mittal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vinod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mr. S.N. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present 528 BNSS, application has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 04.02.2023 along with the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.123 of 2022 (Rajkumari vs. Safi Yadav & Others), CNR No.UPKJ01-000324-2022), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Talgram, District- Kannauj, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kannaj. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint has been lodged against the applicants with the allegations that on 31.12.2021 at about 1:00pm, when the opposite party no.2 was going along with her 20 years old daughter to bring fodder (chara) from the fields, the applicants who were sitting there grabbed her daughter and molested her. The opposite party no.2 and her daughter were also beaten by hand and fist and caste indicative words were also used. The incident was witnessed by Jai Singh and Kanti Devi. Mentioning that the aforesaid persons are powerful persons, the present complaint was lodged in which the applicants were summoned after the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that it is not possible for the entire family to go and molest the opposite party no.2 and her daughter together being father and sons. Though, in the complaint one Kanti Devi has been stated to witness the incident but she has not been examined. He further submits that no offence against the applicants are disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide 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. on the other hand submits that from the version of the complaint, statement of the victim recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of witness Jai Singh, prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. 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 528 of BNSS (482 of 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 528 BNSS, to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 528 of 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 the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the Complaint Case No.123 of 2022 (Rajkumari vs. Safi Yadav & Others), CNR No.UPKJ01-000324- 2022), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Talgram, District- Kannauj, is refused. However, it is provided that in case the applicants move bail application before the court below within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the Court below, informant/opposite party no.2, keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. in accordance with after hearing law, For the period of three weeks from today or till the bail application is decided, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. With the aforesaid observation, the present 528 BNSS application is disposed of. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Kalp Nath Singh

Heard Mr. Himanshu Mittal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vinod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mr. S.N. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present 528 BNSS, application has been filed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 04.02.2023 along with the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.123 of 2022 (Rajkumari vs. Safi Yadav & Others), CNR No.UPKJ01-000324-2022), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Talgram, District- Kannauj, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kannaj. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint has been lodged against the applicants with the allegations that on 31.12.2021 at about 1:00pm, when the opposite party no.2 was going along with her 20 years old daughter to bring fodder (chara) from the fields, the applicants who were sitting there grabbed her daughter and molested her. The opposite party no.2 and her daughter were also beaten by hand and fist and caste indicative words were also used. The incident was witnessed by Jai Singh and Kanti Devi. Mentioning that the aforesaid persons are powerful persons, the present complaint was lodged in which the applicants were summoned after the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that it is not possible for the entire family to go and molest the opposite party no.2 and her daughter together being father and sons. Though, in the complaint one Kanti Devi has been stated to witness the incident but she has not been examined. He further submits that no offence against the applicants are disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide 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. on the other hand submits that from the version of the complaint, statement of the victim recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of witness Jai Singh, prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. 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 528 of BNSS (482 of 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 528 BNSS, to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 528 of 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 the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the Complaint Case No.123 of 2022 (Rajkumari vs. Safi Yadav & Others), CNR No.UPKJ01-000324- 2022), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Talgram, District- Kannauj, is refused. However, it is provided that in case the applicants move bail application before the court below within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the Court below, informant/opposite party no.2, keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. in accordance with after hearing law, For the period of three weeks from today or till the bail application is decided, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. With the aforesaid observation, the present 528 BNSS application is disposed of. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Kalp Nath Singh