Kusum Devi v. Pranshu and Others), under Sections

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that regarding an incident dated 29.12.2023 applicant no.1 Pranshu Singh has lodged a first information report against sons of opposite party no.2 for offence under Sections 341, 307, 504, 506 IPC. In that incident, applicant no.2 has sustained serious injuries. After that the opposite party no.2 has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was rejected. The revision against that order was also rejected. After that the opposite party no.2 has lodged impugned complaint. Learned counsel submitted that impugned proceedings are malicious and counterblast and that the injuries sustained by son of opposite party no.2 are doubtful. The impugned complaint was lodged to make out a cross case. Learned counsel has referred statement of complainant and of witnesses and submitted that the allegations levelled against applicants are wholly false and impugned proceedings are malicious and counterblast and thus liable to be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations made in the complaint and statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima- facie case is made out against the applicants.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well- settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

7. In the instant matter, it appears from record that regarding alleged incident dated

29.12.2023 applicant no.1 has lodged a first information report against sons of opposite party no.2 and regarding same incident, the opposite party no.2 has lodged impugned complaint. Both the parties have sustained injuries. It appears from impugned order that son of opposite party no.2 has sustained several injuries and impugned proceedings are counter version of the case lodged by the applicant no.1. During inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., injured Ashwani Kumar has supported version of complaint and concerned doctor has also supported the version of complainant. In view of facts of the matter, various questions of facts are involved. Further, the revision against summoning order dated 20.12.2024 has already been dismissed by the Session Court. Once the revision is dismissed, interference in summoning order can only be made when there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Court or the required statutory procedure has not been followed with or there is failure of justice. It is therefore to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process that High Court is preserved with inherent powers and would be justified under such circumstance to exercise inherent powers. In this connection reference may be made to case of Deepti aliasArati Rai v. Akhil Rai & Ors, (1995) 5 SCC 751, Laxmi Bai Patel Vs. Shyam Kumar Patel; 2002 0 Supreme (SC) 283, Dharampal & Ors. v. Ramshri; 1993 (1) SCC 435 and Rajathi Vs. C.Ganesan; 1999 SCC (Cri) 1118. In the instant case, examining the matter at the touchstone of the said legal position, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. In fact the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned/adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

8. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Accordingly, the prayer as made above is hereby refused.

9. However, it is directed that in case applicants appear/ surrender before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicants surrender before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

10. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 16.5.2025//SP'/-

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that regarding an incident dated 29.12.2023 applicant no.1 Pranshu Singh has lodged a first information report against sons of opposite party no.2 for offence under Sections 341, 307, 504, 506 IPC. In that incident, applicant no.2 has sustained serious injuries. After that the opposite party no.2 has moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was rejected. The revision against that order was also rejected. After that the opposite party no.2 has lodged impugned complaint. Learned counsel submitted that impugned proceedings are malicious and counterblast and that the injuries sustained by son of opposite party no.2 are doubtful. The impugned complaint was lodged to make out a cross case. Learned counsel has referred statement of complainant and of witnesses and submitted that the allegations levelled against applicants are wholly false and impugned proceedings are malicious and counterblast and thus liable to be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of allegations made in the complaint and statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima- facie case is made out against the applicants.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well- settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

7. In the instant matter, it appears from record that regarding alleged incident dated

29.12.2023 applicant no.1 has lodged a first information report against sons of opposite party no.2 and regarding same incident, the opposite party no.2 has lodged impugned complaint. Both the parties have sustained injuries. It appears from impugned order that son of opposite party no.2 has sustained several injuries and impugned proceedings are counter version of the case lodged by the applicant no.1. During inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., injured Ashwani Kumar has supported version of complaint and concerned doctor has also supported the version of complainant. In view of facts of the matter, various questions of facts are involved. Further, the revision against summoning order dated 20.12.2024 has already been dismissed by the Session Court. Once the revision is dismissed, interference in summoning order can only be made when there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Court or the required statutory procedure has not been followed with or there is failure of justice. It is therefore to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process that High Court is preserved with inherent powers and would be justified under such circumstance to exercise inherent powers. In this connection reference may be made to case of Deepti aliasArati Rai v. Akhil Rai & Ors, (1995) 5 SCC 751, Laxmi Bai Patel Vs. Shyam Kumar Patel; 2002 0 Supreme (SC) 283, Dharampal & Ors. v. Ramshri; 1993 (1) SCC 435 and Rajathi Vs. C.Ganesan; 1999 SCC (Cri) 1118. In the instant case, examining the matter at the touchstone of the said legal position, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. In fact the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned/adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

8. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. Accordingly, the prayer as made above is hereby refused.

9. However, it is directed that in case applicants appear/ surrender before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicants surrender before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

10. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 16.5.2025//SP'/-