Nema Devi v. Deepak and others), is also being impugned, whereby the revision against order d
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79959 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12745 of 2025 Applicant :- Nema Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been preferred against order dated 27.09.2022, passed by the Judicial Magistrate (F.T.C. No.2), Farrukhabad in Case No.65 of 2022, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant / complainant has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The order dated 21.12.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Farrukhabad in Criminal Revision No.6 of 2023 (Nema Devi Vs. Deepak and others), is also being impugned, whereby the revision against order dated 27.09.2022 has been dismissed.
Legal Reasoning
complaint. It is well settled that if a bare perusal of a complaint or the evidence led in support of it shows that essential ingredients of the offence alleged are absent or that the dispute is only a civil nature or that there are such patent absurdities in evidence produced that it would be a waste of time to proceed further, the complaint could be properly dismissed under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. 8. At this stage it may be stated that the complaint of applicant was dismissed by the learned Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 27.09.2022 and revision against order dated 27.09.2022 has already been dismissed. 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. In such matters, interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can only be made when there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Court or the required statutory procedure has not been followed with or there is failure of justice. It is therefore to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process that High Court is preserved with inherent powers and would be justified under such circumstance to exercise inherent powers. In this connection reference may be made to case of Deepti aliasArati Rai v. Akhil Rai & Ors, (1995) 5 SCC 751, Laxmi Bai Patel Vs. Shyam Kumar Patel; 2002 0 Supreme (SC) 283, Dharampal & Ors. v. Ramshri; 1993 (1) SCC 435 and Rajathi Vs. C.Ganesan; 1999 SCC (Cri) 1118. 9. In the instant matter, it appears from record that applicant / complainant was married with opposite party no.2 and there was matrimonial dispute between them. The complainant has alleged that on 17.09.2020 her uncle-in-law and one other person have took applicant / complainant to her matrimonial home for compromise and in the night the applicant no.4 Ajay Kumar (brother-in-law of applicant) and applicant no.5 Megh Singh (uncle-in-law of applicant) have committed rape upon her. After investigation, police have submitted final report. The protest petition preferred by applicant was registered as a complaint. The complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and inquiry was conducted under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the said complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by a reasoned order dated 27.09.2022. The applicant has preferred a criminal revision against the order dated 27.09.2022, which has been dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2024. In view of attending facts and circumstances of the matter, it is apparent that allegations of rape levelled by applicant against her brother-in-law and uncle-in-law are absurd and improbable. It appears that this allegation was made in order to settle score in matrimonial dispute. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. Further, as stated above, revision against order dated 27.09.2022 has already been dismissed and in such circumstances interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS can only be made in case of abuse of process of court or grave miscarriage of justice or that some mandatory statutory provisions have not been followed. In the instant matter, no such contingency is made out. Applying the above referred legal position to the case on hand, no case for invocation of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / 528 BNSS is made out. The application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merits and thus, liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 'SP'/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has lodged first information report against opposite party nos.2 to 5 for offence under Sections 504, 506, 376D IPC but the police did not investigate the matter properly and submitted final report. The applicant has preferred a protest petition, which was registered as a complaint case. The applicant has made clear allegations against opposite party no.2 to 5 that they have molested her and committed rape upon her but the complaint of applicant was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 27.09.2022. The applicant has preferred a criminal revision against the order dated 27.09.2022 but the revision has also been dismissed by the Session Court, without considering facts and position of law. Learned counsel has referred statement of complainant and of witnesses and submitted that a prima-facie case is made out against the opposite party nos.2 to 5 and both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no material illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. Before proceeding further, it would be expedient to go through the provisions as enunciated under Sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C., which read as under :- Section 203 Cr.P.C. "Dismissal of complaint- If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing." Section 204 Cr.P.C. "204. Issue of process. (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be- (a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or (b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction." 7. Thus, it is clear that as per the procedure prescribed for proceedings with regard to the complaint case, after recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section - 202 Cr.P.C., if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding exist and he may dismiss the