Smt. Shamim Bano v. Naseeb Jahan), under Section
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84132 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3566 of 2025 Applicant :- Naseeb Jahan And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amir Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rizwan Ahamad Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. This application u/s 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 01.08.2016, of Complaint Case No. 319 of 2016
Legal Reasoning
statement of complainant and of witnesses and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicants and impugned proceedings are malicious and thus, liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the application and submitted that this case has no connection with the first information report lodged by the said Shafique Ahmad. It was submitted that in view of statement of complainant and of witnesses, a prima facie case is made out against applicants. It is further stated that revision against summoning order has already been dismissed. 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 judgment of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 605, Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash F.I.R. or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 7. At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that revision against summoning order dated 01.08.2016 has already been dismissed by the Sessions Court. It is correct that availing of the remedy of the revision before the Sessions Judge under Section - 399 CrPC does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High Court under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. but it is equally true that the High Court should not act as a second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. While exercising its inherent powers in such a matter it must be conscious of the fact that the Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his revisory power in the matter. 8. In Deepti alias Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai & Ors, (1995) 5 SCC 751, the Apex Court held that second revision application, after dismissal of the first one by sessions court is not maintainable and that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilized for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. In case of Laxmi Bai Patel Vs. Shyam Kumar Patel; 2002 0 Supreme (SC) 283, the Court held: "3. Before taking up the merits of the case, it would be proper to consider the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a case where the sessions court exercising revisional power under Section 397(3)Cr.P.C. has dismissed the revision petition by the aggrieved party, a second revision petition about acceptance of the same party is barred. The position is well- settled that in such a case power under Section 482Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court in rare cases and in exceptional circumstances where the court finds that permitting the impugned order to remain undisturbed will amount to abuse of process of the court and will result in failure of justice." 9. Similarly in the case of Dharampal & Ors. v. Ramshri; 1993 (1) SCC 435, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that- " .... Section 397(3) bars a second revision application by the same party. It is now well-settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilized for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. Hence, the High Court had clearly erred in entertaining the second revision at the instance of Respondent 1. On this short ground itself, the impugned order of the High Court can be set aside." 10. In the case of Rajathi Vs. C.Ganesan; 1999 SCC (Cri) 1118, the Court held as follows:- "In Krishnan v. Krishnaveni(1997 (4) SCC 241 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 544), this Court explained the scope and power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The question before the Court was if in view of the bar of second revision under sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code was prohibited, whether inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482 of the Code. Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section 397(3) of the Code, a person - accused/complainant - cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under Section 397(1) or under inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397(3) or Section 397(2) of the Code. It is seen that the High Court has suo motu power under Section 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Code. So, when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional power under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code. As stated earlier, it may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings.'' 11. Thus, once the revision against summoning order is dismissed, the High Court in power under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. would interfere only where it is shown that if the complaint is allowed to be proceeded with, it would amount to abuse of the process of Court or that interest of justice otherwise call for quashing of the complaint. The provisions of Section - 482 Cr.P.C. have reincarnated in Section - 528 of BNSS. Hence, similar analogy would be applicable in respect of application under Section - 528 BNSS. 12. In the instant matter, the opposite party no.2 has lodged the impugned complaint alleging that on 30.10.2015 all the applicants have assaulted the husband of complainant. The said incident was also recorded in C.C.T.V.. The complainant has supported that version in her statement under Section - 200 Cr.P.C. The witnesses examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C. have also supported that version. As stated above, the revision against summoning order has already been dismissed and in such situation the interference under Section - 528 BNSS can only be made in case when there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice. In the instant matter no such contingency is made out. Applying the principles set out in the judgments referred above to the case on hand, no case for invocation of powers under Section - 528 BNSS is made out. The application under Section - 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus liable to be dismissed. 14. The application u/s 528 BNSS is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 S Rawat Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
(Smt. Shamim Bano Vs. Naseeb Jahan), under Section - 323 I.P.C., Police Station - Sikandrabad, District - Bulandshahr, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Bulandshahr. The order dated 16.12.2024, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Bulandshahr in Criminal Revision No. 03 of 2024 (Naseeb Jahan and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), is also being impugned. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that impugned complaint has been lodged making false and baseless allegation.On 15.04.2014 one Shafique Ahmad has lodged a first information report against husband of the opposite party no.2 and others and in that case some of the named accused persons have been convicted. The impugned complaint has been lodged as a counter blast to the said case. The complainant has not sustained any injury. Learned counsel has referred