Neelam Devi v. Satyaveer alias Satya and Ors) U/s

3. The case of the applicants is set out in the proceedings lodged on 03.05.2024 U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants with an allegation that the applicants belong to the same village where the opposite party no.2 resides and on 03.02.2024 at 7:00 in the morning, the applicants herein while hurling abuses barged into the house of the opposite party no.2 when the opposite party no.2 along with her minor daughter/ victim were all alone and when the same was resisted then the applicants herein exhibited and indecent behaviour and molested while doing obscene activities against the opposite party no.2 and daughter and when the opposite party no.2 made hue and cry then the husband of opposite party no.2 and other villagers came there and with huge difficulty the victim was saved from the clutches of the applicants and the applicants threatening to kill the opposite party no.2 and ran away. The opposite party no.2 approached the police station for lodging the FIR but when nothing was done, then a complaint was lodged and send by registered post on 22.02.2024 followed by another written complaint dated 08.04.2024 before ADG, Bareilly Zone. Vide order dated 05.07.2024 the Special Judge, POCSO Act/ Additional District Judge Bareilly registered the case as the complaint case and post recording of the statement U/s 200 Cr.P.C. of the opposite party no.2, victim U/s 202 Cr.P.C. witnesses Rakesh U/s 202 Cr.P.C. the applicants came to be summoned on 02.05.2025 U/s 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 9(g)/ 10 of POCSO Act.

4. Questioning the summoning order, the present application has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for more than one reason particularly when no such incident took place. The victim was not subjected to any medical examination and had the victim been subjected to medical examination the truth would have surfaced. Further submission is that there happened to be an ulterior motive in lodging the complaint particularly when post submission of the proceeding U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. an order came to be passed by the court below requiring an enquiry be done with respect to the fact as to whether incident occurred or not wherein a report came to be submitted on 27.05.2024 annexure-6 page 39 of the paper book reference whereof has been made in para 13 of the application that the son of opposite party no.2 was in love with and intimate with the neice of the applicant no.1 being Payal and proceedings were lodged bearing case crime no. 506 of 2023 and 97 of 2023 U/s 3/25 of POCSO Act which became the basis for lodging of the complaint. Argument is that only reasons behind lodging of the main complaint is to dictate terms and to impose the will upon the applicants to enter into compromise. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the statements so made of the witness U/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are tailor made just in order to suit the circumstances in favour of the prosecution. Further submission is that even otherwise the summoning order is cryptic and it does not record any prima facie satisfaction of the holding of the attraction of the penal offences and reference has been made to the judgment in the case of Mehmood Ul Rehman vs Khazir Mohammad Tunda (2015) 12 SCC 420 and the case of Mahbood and Ors vs. State of U.P., 2016 SCC Online Allahabad 4468. It is thus prayed that the summoning order be set aside.

6. Learned AGA while countering submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a bare look of the allegations in the complaint vis-a-vis the statement U/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. would go to show that there are no material contradictions or variation so as to indicate that the prosecution theory suffers from flaw. He further submits that mere non subjection of the victim to medical examination would not be fatal.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

8. At the instance of the applicants challenge has been raised to the order dated 02.05.2025 summoning the applicants U/s 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC and Section 9(g)/ 10 of POCSO Act. There are certain criterias which are required to adhertive to in order to determination as to whether the summoning orders suffers from infirmity or not. Amongst others one of the criteria would be the nature of the allegations in the complaint vis-a-vis the statements under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. Once there are material contradictions in the statement vis-a-vis the complaint then obviously a case for interference is made out. Applying the principles of law in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 being the mother of the victim against the applicants on 03.05.2024 with an allegations i.e. on 03.02.2024 at 7:00 in the morning when the opposite party no.2 and her daughter were all alone then the applicants barged into the house and when the same was resisted, they exbihited indecent behaviour and also extended obscene gesture and started molesting the victim and the opposite party no.2 and on hue and cry so raised, the husband of the opposite party no.2 and the villagers came there then the applicants hurling abuses and ran away. The prosecution theory is supported as apparent from the statement of the opposite party no.2 U/s 200 Cr.P.C. further by the statement of the witnesses Rakesh U/s 202 Cr.P.C. and of course by the victim U/s 202 Cr.P.C. wherein it has been deposed that the applicants herein had pressed the chest of opposite party no.2 and molested. In the statement of the victim U/s 202 Cr.P.C. it is also deposed that the applicants molested the mother of victim being opposite party no.2. As a matter of fact the statement U/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are intact and they supports the prosecution theory as nothing is prima-facie forthcoming that the case is not triable. As regards the submissions of the counsel for the applicants that since the victim and the opposite party no.2 were not subjected to medical examination thus, the prosecution theory would fall is not convinciable particularly when non subjection to medical examination would have its own effect and impact when the trial commences and the decision is to be taken whether it is a case for conviction or acquittal. As regards the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants is that there happens to be a previous rivalry and friction between the applicants and the opposite party no.2 which entailed lodging of the first information report under the penal sections and the same became a motivating factor for lodging the impugned complaint is concerned, the same at best is a defence, conisderation whereof would be required if any at the stage when the trial commences. The defences cannot be gone into at the stage when the summoning order is a subject matter of challenge. With respect to the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that the summoning order is cryptic is concerned, the same is not liable to be accepted particularly when the court below though not happly worded but has considered the statements of the witnesses U/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and the nature of the allegations in the complaint. In the case of M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 192 and the paragraph no. 23 culled out the following propositions of law which is enumerated hereinunder:- "i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ''rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."

9. Cumulatively analysing the case in the four corners of law, this Court does not find the present case to be an exceptional category in absence of pointing out any judicial infirmity for interference.

10. Accordingly, the interference is declined.

11. The applications stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicants to take all legal and factual grounds while contesting the trial and the court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 /C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) CHANDRAMANI VERMA CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. The case of the applicants is set out in the proceedings lodged on 03.05.2024 U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants with an allegation that the applicants belong to the same village where the opposite party no.2 resides and on 03.02.2024 at 7:00 in the morning, the applicants herein while hurling abuses barged into the house of the opposite party no.2 when the opposite party no.2 along with her minor daughter/ victim were all alone and when the same was resisted then the applicants herein exhibited and indecent behaviour and molested while doing obscene activities against the opposite party no.2 and daughter and when the opposite party no.2 made hue and cry then the husband of opposite party no.2 and other villagers came there and with huge difficulty the victim was saved from the clutches of the applicants and the applicants threatening to kill the opposite party no.2 and ran away. The opposite party no.2 approached the police station for lodging the FIR but when nothing was done, then a complaint was lodged and send by registered post on 22.02.2024 followed by another written complaint dated 08.04.2024 before ADG, Bareilly Zone. Vide order dated 05.07.2024 the Special Judge, POCSO Act/ Additional District Judge Bareilly registered the case as the complaint case and post recording of the statement U/s 200 Cr.P.C. of the opposite party no.2, victim U/s 202 Cr.P.C. witnesses Rakesh U/s 202 Cr.P.C. the applicants came to be summoned on 02.05.2025 U/s 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 9(g)/ 10 of POCSO Act.

4. Questioning the summoning order, the present application has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the summoning order cannot be sustained for more than one reason particularly when no such incident took place. The victim was not subjected to any medical examination and had the victim been subjected to medical examination the truth would have surfaced. Further submission is that there happened to be an ulterior motive in lodging the complaint particularly when post submission of the proceeding U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. an order came to be passed by the court below requiring an enquiry be done with respect to the fact as to whether incident occurred or not wherein a report came to be submitted on 27.05.2024 annexure-6 page 39 of the paper book reference whereof has been made in para 13 of the application that the son of opposite party no.2 was in love with and intimate with the neice of the applicant no.1 being Payal and proceedings were lodged bearing case crime no. 506 of 2023 and 97 of 2023 U/s 3/25 of POCSO Act which became the basis for lodging of the complaint. Argument is that only reasons behind lodging of the main complaint is to dictate terms and to impose the will upon the applicants to enter into compromise. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the statements so made of the witness U/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are tailor made just in order to suit the circumstances in favour of the prosecution. Further submission is that even otherwise the summoning order is cryptic and it does not record any prima facie satisfaction of the holding of the attraction of the penal offences and reference has been made to the judgment in the case of Mehmood Ul Rehman vs Khazir Mohammad Tunda (2015) 12 SCC 420 and the case of Mahbood and Ors vs. State of U.P., 2016 SCC Online Allahabad 4468. It is thus prayed that the summoning order be set aside.

6. Learned AGA while countering submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a bare look of the allegations in the complaint vis-a-vis the statement U/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. would go to show that there are no material contradictions or variation so as to indicate that the prosecution theory suffers from flaw. He further submits that mere non subjection of the victim to medical examination would not be fatal.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

8. At the instance of the applicants challenge has been raised to the order dated 02.05.2025 summoning the applicants U/s 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC and Section 9(g)/ 10 of POCSO Act. There are certain criterias which are required to adhertive to in order to determination as to whether the summoning orders suffers from infirmity or not. Amongst others one of the criteria would be the nature of the allegations in the complaint vis-a-vis the statements under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. Once there are material contradictions in the statement vis-a-vis the complaint then obviously a case for interference is made out. Applying the principles of law in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 being the mother of the victim against the applicants on 03.05.2024 with an allegations i.e. on 03.02.2024 at 7:00 in the morning when the opposite party no.2 and her daughter were all alone then the applicants barged into the house and when the same was resisted, they exbihited indecent behaviour and also extended obscene gesture and started molesting the victim and the opposite party no.2 and on hue and cry so raised, the husband of the opposite party no.2 and the villagers came there then the applicants hurling abuses and ran away. The prosecution theory is supported as apparent from the statement of the opposite party no.2 U/s 200 Cr.P.C. further by the statement of the witnesses Rakesh U/s 202 Cr.P.C. and of course by the victim U/s 202 Cr.P.C. wherein it has been deposed that the applicants herein had pressed the chest of opposite party no.2 and molested. In the statement of the victim U/s 202 Cr.P.C. it is also deposed that the applicants molested the mother of victim being opposite party no.2. As a matter of fact the statement U/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are intact and they supports the prosecution theory as nothing is prima-facie forthcoming that the case is not triable. As regards the submissions of the counsel for the applicants that since the victim and the opposite party no.2 were not subjected to medical examination thus, the prosecution theory would fall is not convinciable particularly when non subjection to medical examination would have its own effect and impact when the trial commences and the decision is to be taken whether it is a case for conviction or acquittal. As regards the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants is that there happens to be a previous rivalry and friction between the applicants and the opposite party no.2 which entailed lodging of the first information report under the penal sections and the same became a motivating factor for lodging the impugned complaint is concerned, the same at best is a defence, conisderation whereof would be required if any at the stage when the trial commences. The defences cannot be gone into at the stage when the summoning order is a subject matter of challenge. With respect to the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that the summoning order is cryptic is concerned, the same is not liable to be accepted particularly when the court below though not happly worded but has considered the statements of the witnesses U/s 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and the nature of the allegations in the complaint. In the case of M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 192 and the paragraph no. 23 culled out the following propositions of law which is enumerated hereinunder:- "i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ''rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."

9. Cumulatively analysing the case in the four corners of law, this Court does not find the present case to be an exceptional category in absence of pointing out any judicial infirmity for interference.

10. Accordingly, the interference is declined.

11. The applications stands disposed of leaving it open to the applicants to take all legal and factual grounds while contesting the trial and the court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 /C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) CHANDRAMANI VERMA CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad