Munni Devi v. Ram Gopal and others), under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33604 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20504 of 2024 Applicant :- Ram Gopal And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Narayan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceeding including, summoning order dated 23.05.2024, of Complaint Case No. 1474 of 2024 (Munni Devi Vs. Ram Gopal and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354A, 379 IPC, P.S.- Sadar Bazar, District- Shahjahanpur, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M., Court No.20, Shahjahanpur. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned complaint has been lodged making false and baseless allegations. Earlier the opposite party No. 2 has lodged a case against applicant No. 1 and others and that only general and vague allegations have been made that all the accused persons have threatened the complainant to withdraw the said case lodged by her earlier and assaulted her and also robbed Rs.5,000/- from her house. The allegations made by the opposite party No. 2 are wholly false and improbable. No specific allegation has been made against applicant No. 2 to 7. It was submitted that the entire family of applicant No.1 has impleaded as accused by making general and vague allegations. There is no injury report of complainant or her
Legal Reasoning
no prima facie case is made out against applicants. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has opposed the application and submitted that the complainant has made clear allegations that earlier she has lodged a Case No.0117 of 2024, under Section 323, 352, 452, 504, 506 IPC against applicant No.1 and others and that on 19.09.2024 they have threatened the complainant to withdraw the said case. The complainant has further alleged that the applicants have assaulted the complainant and her son and they have forcibly taken away Rs.5000/- from her house. It was submitted that the version of complainant is supported by the witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and a prima facie case is made out against applicants. It is further submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned summoning order and thus, no case for interference is made out. 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 Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement 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. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 522, the Apex Court elaborated on what evidence and material the High Court can get into in cases where a prayer for quashing a complaint has been made. The Court held: ''Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto." 7. Thus, the legal position is well settled that 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 / complaint may be quashed. Similarly, where the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and inherently improbable or where criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the complaint / proceedings may be quashed. 8. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the complainant has lodged impugned complaint alleging that on 16.02.2024 she has lodged a first information report against applicant no.1 and others. On 19.02.2024 at about 07.00 PM the applicants have abused the complainant stating that she has not withdrawn the said case and they have assaulted the complainant and her son and also took away Rs.5000/- from her house. In her statement, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has made merely a vague allegation that all the applicants came at her house and assaulted her by leg and fists. She has further stated that applicant no.1 Ram Gopal pressed her neck and did obscene acts and also committed robbery of Rs.5000/-. Similar statement has been made by the witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The complainant or her son has not sustained any injury. It is apparent that specific role has been assigned only to applicant no.1 Ram Gopal. Regarding remaining applicants, which includes women, only general allegations have been made that they have assaulted the complainant and her son. No specific role has been assigned to the applicants No. 2 to 7. So far the allegation of robbery of Rs. five thousands from house of the complainant is concerned, the same appears absurd and wholly unreliable. It can not be believed that a person along with his son, daughter and other family members would commit such an incident of robbery in broad day light in his neighbourhood. It may be stated that the entire family of a person cannot be implicated by making general and vague allegations that they have assaulted the complainant, particularly when the complainant has not sustained any injury. Thus, so far applicant no.2 to 7 are concerned, no prima facie case is made out against them. 9. However, so far applicant no.1 Ram Gopal is concerned, specific allegation has been made against him and that version is supported by complainant in her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The witnesses examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have also made statement about specific role of applicant no.1 Ram Gopal. Thus, a prima facie case is made out against applicant no.1, hence the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of applicant no.1 Ram Gopal is liable to be dismissed. 10. In view of aforesaid, the application of behalf of applicant no.1 Ram Gopal is dismissed. The application on behalf of applicant no.2 to 7 is allowed. The impugned proceedings against applicant No. 2 to 7, namely, Ashish, Raj, Arti, Sheetal, Seema and Nandani, are hereby quashed. The impugned summoning order stand altered to this extent. 11. The case against applicant Ram Gopal would proceed further in accordance with law.
Arguments
son. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that
Decision
12. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of in the above terms. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 RKM Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad