Chandrabhan Bhardwaj v. Chhotelal Chauhan), under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39648 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8914 of 2025 Applicant :- Chhotelal Chauhan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including impugned summoning order dated 10.04.2023, of Complaint Case No. 882 of 2022 (Chandrabhan Bhardwaj Vs. Chhotelal Chauhan), under Sections 419, 504 I.P.C., pending in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Saidpur, Ghazipur. The order dated 28.01.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No. 120 of 2023 by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act), Ghazipur is also being impugned.
Legal Reasoning
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 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, perusal of record shows that the opposite party no. 2 has lodged the impugned complaint alleging that on 20.07.2022 the applicant has made a false complaint at Chief Minister Portal by using the name of opposite party no. 2 and for OTP purpose the mobile phone number of opposite party no. 2 / complainant was mentioned. In inquiry of said complaint, the opposite party no. 2 / complainant came to know about said false complaint. The said version is supported by the complainant in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have also supported the version of complainant. Further, revision against summoning order has already been dismissed. 8. It is well settled that once the revision against summoning order has been dismissed, interference under Section 528 B.N.S.S. can be made only in extraordinary circumstances or there has been some misuse of process of law. It is correct that availing of the remedy of the revision before the Sessions Judge under Section 399 Cr.P.C. does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High Court under Section 482 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. 9. In Deepti aliasArati 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 482Cr.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." 10. 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. Onthis short ground itself, the impugned order of the High Court can be set aside." 11. 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.'' 12. 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 same analogy would be applicable in respect of jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S., in as much as this provision is reincarnation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the instant matter no such contingency is made out. Thus, no case for invoking powers under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is made out. Application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is liable to be dismissed. 14. The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 SK Srivastava Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 making false and baseless allegations. There is election related enmity between the parties. The allegations that applicant has made a false complaint on Chief Minister Portal by using the name of opposite party no. 2 is wholly false. There is no evidence that the said complaint was made by the applicant. In the said complaint, the mobile phone number of applicant as well as of opposite party no. 2 have been mentioned. The applicant has been summoned merely on the basis of allegation made by the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel has referred facts of the matter and the statement of complainant and of witnesses and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The revisional Court has also not considered the matter in correct perspective and the revision against summoning order was dismised. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there are clear allegations that applicant has lodged a complaint at I.G.R.S. Portal by the name of opposite party no. 2 by using his own mobile phone number and that mobile phone number of applicant was also mentioned. P.W.-1, who has been examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C., has stated that Circle Officer has made enquiry regarding that complaint and thereafter they came to know that a false complaint was lodged by the name of opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted 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