Virendra Kumar Nishad v. Vipin Kumar and others) registered under Sections

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the entire proceedings including the summoning order dated 31.03.2023 and non bailable warrant dated

04.09.2025 in Case No. 22560 of 2022 (Virendra Kumar Nishad versus Vipin Kumar and others) registered under Sections 323, 324, 342, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Jhangha, District-Gorakhpur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Senior Division-3 Gorakhpur.

3. According to Complaint Case, in the midnight hours 20.07.2022 at about

1.30 a.m., the present applicants, who are police personnel, barged into the house of the complainant and beaten him up along with his family members. His wife was molested. Both the son and the first informant sustained injuries. The S.H.O. had taken the first informant and his both sons with him in injured conditions and detained them in the lock-up. At about 10.00 am, on the morning of 21.07.2022, they obtained the signatures of the respondent no. 2 on a blank paper and released him along with his sons. Respondent no. 2 got himself medically examined at P.H.C. Rudrapur, District-Deoria and both sons got themselves medially examined at P.H.C. Bramhpur. The complainant has made complaint to the S.S.P. Gorakhpur on 22.07.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, as per the G.D. No. 27 dated 21.07.2022 at about 14.02 hours, the complainant and his sons, 2 NA528 No. 35866 of 2025 namely, Vinay Kumar and Manohar Kumar had been summoned for the purpose of inquiry in Case Crime No. 192 of 2022, registered under Section 376 I.P.C. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, they have been released along with one of his cousin brothers, Rudal Nishad son of Tufani.

5. He has laid emphasis on the medical report of one of the injured person, Vinay Kumar son of the complainant, and the medical report of the complainant as well. According to the medico legal report of the Vinay Kumar, he got himself medically examined on 23.07.2022 at P.H.C. Brahmpur, District Gorakhpur. However, the complainant has got himself medically examined on the next date, i.e., 24.07.2022 at P.H.C. Rudrapur, District-Deoria, which is situated at a distance of 40 km from the place of the incident in question. As per his submission, the dates of the medical examinations and the related evidence cast doubts on the genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint.

6. It is next submitted that, on 21.07.2022, Virendra Kumar and his sons were released along with his cousin brother Rudal Nishad. However, Rudal Nishad has not deposed as a witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint. He has emphasized, as well, on the date of first complaint i.e. 27.07.2022 which was made by the complainant to the S.S.P. that too after a week from the date of the incident i.e. 20.07.2022. It is further submitted that a false and malicious prosecution has been instituted against the police personnel to coerce them into a compromise in previous Case Crime No. 192 of 2022 under Section 376 I.P.C. It is next submitted that learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order dated 31.03.2023 in a perfunctory manner without applying his judicial mind to prima facie satisfy himself as to the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint. Statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has not been discussed. However, merely reference has been made to them in the order. Out of two witnesses one is the son of the first informant and second witness is cousin brother.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that contents of C.D. No. 27 dated 21.07.2022, has not been refuted by the complainant and the material relied upon by the accused (applicant herein) is of sterling and impeccable quality. In support of his submission he has relied upon the paragraph nos. 17 and 20 of the judgment dated September 2, 2025, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani 3 NA528 No. 35866 of 2025 Vs. State of U.P and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025), which are quoted herein below: "17. The duty of the court in cases where an accused seeks quashing of an FIR or proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, or vexatious, or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance was delineated by this Court in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951. We may refer to the following observations: "34. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. 4 NA528 No. 35866 of 2025 Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged." (Emphasis supplied)

20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- (i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]"

8. Prima facie matter requires consideration. 5 NA528 No. 35866 of 2025

9. Respondent no. 1 is represented through learned A.G.A.

10. Let notice be issued to respondent no. 2 fixing 17.11.2025.

11. List this matter on 17.11.2025.

12. In the meantime, both the parties shall exchange their respective affidavits, if any.

13. Until further orders of this court, further proceedings against the applicants in the aforementioned case, shall remain stayed. September 17, 2025 SY (Dinesh Pathak,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the entire proceedings including the summoning order dated 31.03.2023 and non bailable warrant dated

04.09.2025 in Case No. 22560 of 2022 (Virendra Kumar Nishad versus Vipin Kumar and others) registered under Sections 323, 324, 342, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Jhangha, District-Gorakhpur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Senior Division-3 Gorakhpur.

3. According to Complaint Case, in the midnight hours 20.07.2022 at about

1.30 a.m., the present applicants, who are police personnel, barged into the house of the complainant and beaten him up along with his family members. His wife was molested. Both the son and the first informant sustained injuries. The S.H.O. had taken the first informant and his both sons with him in injured conditions and detained them in the lock-up. At about 10.00 am, on the morning of 21.07.2022, they obtained the signatures of the respondent no. 2 on a blank paper and released him along with his sons. Respondent no. 2 got himself medically examined at P.H.C. Rudrapur, District-Deoria and both sons got themselves medially examined at P.H.C. Bramhpur. The complainant has made complaint to the S.S.P. Gorakhpur on 22.07.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, as per the G.D. No. 27 dated 21.07.2022 at about 14.02 hours, the complainant and his sons, 2 NA528 No. 35866 of 2025 namely, Vinay Kumar and Manohar Kumar had been summoned for the purpose of inquiry in Case Crime No. 192 of 2022, registered under Section 376 I.P.C. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, they have been released along with one of his cousin brothers, Rudal Nishad son of Tufani.

5. He has laid emphasis on the medical report of one of the injured person, Vinay Kumar son of the complainant, and the medical report of the complainant as well. According to the medico legal report of the Vinay Kumar, he got himself medically examined on 23.07.2022 at P.H.C. Brahmpur, District Gorakhpur. However, the complainant has got himself medically examined on the next date, i.e., 24.07.2022 at P.H.C. Rudrapur, District-Deoria, which is situated at a distance of 40 km from the place of the incident in question. As per his submission, the dates of the medical examinations and the related evidence cast doubts on the genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint.

6. It is next submitted that, on 21.07.2022, Virendra Kumar and his sons were released along with his cousin brother Rudal Nishad. However, Rudal Nishad has not deposed as a witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint. He has emphasized, as well, on the date of first complaint i.e. 27.07.2022 which was made by the complainant to the S.S.P. that too after a week from the date of the incident i.e. 20.07.2022. It is further submitted that a false and malicious prosecution has been instituted against the police personnel to coerce them into a compromise in previous Case Crime No. 192 of 2022 under Section 376 I.P.C. It is next submitted that learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order dated 31.03.2023 in a perfunctory manner without applying his judicial mind to prima facie satisfy himself as to the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint. Statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has not been discussed. However, merely reference has been made to them in the order. Out of two witnesses one is the son of the first informant and second witness is cousin brother.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that contents of C.D. No. 27 dated 21.07.2022, has not been refuted by the complainant and the material relied upon by the accused (applicant herein) is of sterling and impeccable quality. In support of his submission he has relied upon the paragraph nos. 17 and 20 of the judgment dated September 2, 2025, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani 3 NA528 No. 35866 of 2025 Vs. State of U.P and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025), which are quoted herein below: "17. The duty of the court in cases where an accused seeks quashing of an FIR or proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, or vexatious, or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance was delineated by this Court in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951. We may refer to the following observations: "34. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. 4 NA528 No. 35866 of 2025 Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged." (Emphasis supplied)

20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- (i)Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]"

8. Prima facie matter requires consideration. 5 NA528 No. 35866 of 2025

9. Respondent no. 1 is represented through learned A.G.A.

10. Let notice be issued to respondent no. 2 fixing 17.11.2025.

11. List this matter on 17.11.2025.

12. In the meantime, both the parties shall exchange their respective affidavits, if any.

13. Until further orders of this court, further proceedings against the applicants in the aforementioned case, shall remain stayed. September 17, 2025 SY (Dinesh Pathak,J.)