Sajida Khatoon v. Sahidullah & others) Under Sections

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the summoning order cannot be sustained for more than one reason, particularly, it contains false and concocted story just in order to falsely implicate the applicants. Submission is that no such incident took place and the applicants were not present when the said incident was alleged to have been occurred. Further submission is that the victim was not subjected to any medical examination and had the victim been subjected to medical examination, truth has been surfaced. Further submission is that there happens to be property dispute between the parties became the basis for lodging of the complaint. It is also contended that the statements of the witnesses are tailor-made just in order to suit the environment and the atmosphere for the prosecution to build up a concocted story. It is also contended that the summoning order is cryptic and it does not record any prima facie satisfaction for application of the penal provisions.

8. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that there are no material contradictions or variations in the statements and the witnesses support the prosecution theory. It is also contended on behalf of the State that mere non-subjection of the victim to medical examination would not be fatal insofar as challenge to summoning order is concerned.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

10. Apparently, a complaint stood lodged against the applicants herein with an allegation that on 08.10.2023, the applicant no. 1 barged into the house of the opposite party no. 2 and pressed the breast of the victim who is a minor and when hue and cry was raised then the opposite party no. 2 came there and thereafter while threatening and hurling abuses, the applicant no. 1 ran away and when on the next day, i.e. 09.10.2023, the complaint was made while going to the house of the applicant then the applicants herein assaulted and administered beating upon the opposite party no.2 pursuant whereto the opposite party no. 2 sustained injuries. The injury report is available on record at page 22 of the paper book wherein injuries were found to be simple in nature. At the stage of challenge raised to the summoning in order to find out whether the case is triable or not is only to be prima facie satisfied that offences are made out on the basis of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis the complaint. Here the Court finds that there are no material contradictions so as to out- rightly overruled the occurrence of the incident. More so, the injury report is already there.

11. Insofar as the contentions so raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that the victim was not subjected to medical examination is concerned, the same would make the summoning order fatal is not convincible, particularly, when the effect of the same would be tested and its own strength when the trial commences when decision is to be taken as to whether the accused is to be acquitted or convicted. With respect to the submission that there happens to be property dispute which became the motivating factor is concerned, the same is not required to delve into at this stage, particularly, when the same at best is a defence whose strength would be tested when the trial commences. Insofar as the objection raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that the summoning order is cryptic, the same is not acceptable, particularly, when a bare look of the summoning order itself reveals that the court below had meticulously analysed and prima facie recorded satisfaction that the case is triable on the basis of the complaint and the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

12. Nonetheless, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 192 had flagged a note of caution while mandating that in a routine manner in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 BNSS should not be resorted too so as to scuttle the proceedings. The following was observed: "i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ''rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."

13. Cumulatively, analyzing the case from the four corners of law, the Court finds that does not find the present case is to be fit case for interference, accordingly, the interference is declined, the application stands disposed of.

14. Leaving it open to the applicants to take legal recourse to the remedy as available under the Act. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 A. Prajapati

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the summoning order cannot be sustained for more than one reason, particularly, it contains false and concocted story just in order to falsely implicate the applicants. Submission is that no such incident took place and the applicants were not present when the said incident was alleged to have been occurred. Further submission is that the victim was not subjected to any medical examination and had the victim been subjected to medical examination, truth has been surfaced. Further submission is that there happens to be property dispute between the parties became the basis for lodging of the complaint. It is also contended that the statements of the witnesses are tailor-made just in order to suit the environment and the atmosphere for the prosecution to build up a concocted story. It is also contended that the summoning order is cryptic and it does not record any prima facie satisfaction for application of the penal provisions.

8. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that there are no material contradictions or variations in the statements and the witnesses support the prosecution theory. It is also contended on behalf of the State that mere non-subjection of the victim to medical examination would not be fatal insofar as challenge to summoning order is concerned.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

10. Apparently, a complaint stood lodged against the applicants herein with an allegation that on 08.10.2023, the applicant no. 1 barged into the house of the opposite party no. 2 and pressed the breast of the victim who is a minor and when hue and cry was raised then the opposite party no. 2 came there and thereafter while threatening and hurling abuses, the applicant no. 1 ran away and when on the next day, i.e. 09.10.2023, the complaint was made while going to the house of the applicant then the applicants herein assaulted and administered beating upon the opposite party no.2 pursuant whereto the opposite party no. 2 sustained injuries. The injury report is available on record at page 22 of the paper book wherein injuries were found to be simple in nature. At the stage of challenge raised to the summoning in order to find out whether the case is triable or not is only to be prima facie satisfied that offences are made out on the basis of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis the complaint. Here the Court finds that there are no material contradictions so as to out- rightly overruled the occurrence of the incident. More so, the injury report is already there.

11. Insofar as the contentions so raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that the victim was not subjected to medical examination is concerned, the same would make the summoning order fatal is not convincible, particularly, when the effect of the same would be tested and its own strength when the trial commences when decision is to be taken as to whether the accused is to be acquitted or convicted. With respect to the submission that there happens to be property dispute which became the motivating factor is concerned, the same is not required to delve into at this stage, particularly, when the same at best is a defence whose strength would be tested when the trial commences. Insofar as the objection raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that the summoning order is cryptic, the same is not acceptable, particularly, when a bare look of the summoning order itself reveals that the court below had meticulously analysed and prima facie recorded satisfaction that the case is triable on the basis of the complaint and the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

12. Nonetheless, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 192 had flagged a note of caution while mandating that in a routine manner in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 BNSS should not be resorted too so as to scuttle the proceedings. The following was observed: "i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ''rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."

13. Cumulatively, analyzing the case from the four corners of law, the Court finds that does not find the present case is to be fit case for interference, accordingly, the interference is declined, the application stands disposed of.

14. Leaving it open to the applicants to take legal recourse to the remedy as available under the Act. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 A. Prajapati