High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38140 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2012 of 2025 Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Sri Rahul Singh Tomar, learned Advocate files memo of appearance on behalf of O.P. No. 2. It is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Awasthi, learned Brief Holder for the State
Legal Reasoning
records, prima facie, it cannot be said that no offence has been committed by the applicant. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. 9. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication are pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. 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. 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 482 Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for the asking. 10. 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." 11. 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 Atrocities 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............." 12. In fact while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or while wielding the powers under Article 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. 13. 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 summoning order and the proceedings. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the summoning order dated 25.10.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint case is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. 14. The present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 DS Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
and Sri Rahul Singh Tomar, learned Advocate who has filed memo of appearance on behalf of O.P. No. 2, and perused the record. 3. The applicant has moved the instant application challenging the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2140 of 2024, State v. Sonu, arising out of Case Crime No. 501 of 2020, under Sections 354(B), 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Gulavti, District Bulandshahr and summoning order dated 25.10.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.P.) Act, Bulandshahr. 4. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 08.08.2020 at about 12:58 hours, under Sections 354(Kha), 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. that O.P. No. 2 – Parvendri is a resident of Village Khushhalpur, P.S. Gulavati, District Bulandshahr and belongs to Jatav caste. On 03.05.2020 at about 4 O'clock in evening when O.P. No. 2 and her mother-in-law, namely, Premwati were collecting fodder in the fields and water was flowing in sugar cane field from tubewell of O.P. No. 2, when she (O.P. No. 2) came to drink water at tubewell at about 07:30 p.m., the applicant, who belongs to Brahamin caste, came along with two unknown persons and started pressing her chest and dragged her in sugarcane fields and, tearing her clothes, tried to commit rape upon her and also tore lower (salwaar) of O.P. No. 2. Hearing her scream, mother-in- law, father-in-law and Anil son of Ranjeet and others, who were working in the adjacent field, reached at the spot. The aforementioned three accused persons assaulted father-in-law of O.P. No. 2 brutally, used abusive language (Saali Chamri) and threatened to kill her along with family, if any complaint is made. The O.P. No. 2 dialed 100 from her Mobile No. 7818978466. The police reached the spot and brought O.P. No. 2 as well as her father-in-law in police station, from where they were taken for medical examination. The O.P. No. 2 moved an application on 03.05.2020, whereupon the police personnel stated that they would take action after revocation of lock-down which was in vogue due to pandemic Covid-19. Another application was moved on 20.06.2020 to the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police and was registered on Public Grievance Centre, but the police did not take any action thereon, thus a detailed application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been moved, whereupon the present FIR has been instituted. 5. After investigation, initially a final report was submitted on 28.09.2020 and protest petition was filed on 12.02.2021, in which the applicant has been summoned by order dated 25.10.2024, hence the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations due to dispute regarding a passage. On investigating the matter and finding the incident to be false, final report had been submitted, however, the court concerned has proceeded to summon the applicant on the protest petition without there being any evidence proving prima facie offence against the applicant. It has further been contended that there are variations in the version of FIR and the statements of the victim. 7. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that there is neither any illegality in the impugned summoning order nor variations in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. It is next contended that all the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the