Ashish Kumar Gupta v. Shivkanti and others), under Sections

3. At the outset it was submitted that during pendency of this application, applicant no.2 has since passed away and thus, now this application is being pressed only on behalf of applicant no.1, 3 and 4.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that applicant no.1 is wife of opposite party no.2 and their marriage has taken place in the year 2019. The applicant no.1 was harassed by the opposite party no.2 and his family members and she has filed a complaint under Section 498-A IPC on 23.12.2019 against the opposite party No. 2 and his family members. She has also filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2020 against opposite party no.2. It was submitted that the impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 on

01.03.2021 as a counterblast to those cases. The allegations levelled by opposite party no.2 are wholly false and improbable. Learned counsel has referred statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and submitted that there are material contradictions and that the role of assaulting the complainant with knife has been assigned to applicant no.4 Rahul. Applicant no.3 is sister of applicant no.1. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicants and that impugned proceedings are counter-blast and malicious and thus, liable to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the application and submitted that the complainant has made clear allegations that on 23.02.2021, the applicants came at his house and threatened to implicate him in false case and he was assaulted by them. It was further stated that applicant no.4 Rahul has attacked the complainant with a knife and resultantly he has sustained injuries. The version of complainant is supported by medical examination report. It was submitted that false cases were lodged by the applicant no.1 against opposite party no.2. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that a prima facie case is made out against applicants.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. 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 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.

8. In the instant matter, applicant no.1 is wife of opposite party no.2/ complainant and applicant no. 3 and 4 are her sister and brother. It appears that there was matrimonial dispute between applicant No. 1 and her husband / complainant. It was shown that applicant no.1 has lodged a case under Section 498-A IPC against her husband / complainant and his family members and one case was lodged under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against opposite party no.2 and after that the impugned complaint was lodged by opposite party no.2. The specific role of causing injuries to the complainant has been assigned to applicant no.4 Rahul. Said version of complainant is supported by his medical examination report. In view of the fact that in the alleged incident, there is specific allegation that applicant No. 4 that he has caused knife injuries to the complainant and that version is supported by the medical examination report, a prima facie is made out against the applicant No.4 Rahul. Thus, the instant application on behalf of applicant no.4 Rahul is liable to be dismissed.

9. So far applicant no.1 and 3 are concerned, they are wife and sister-in-law of the complainant and no specific role has been assigned to them. As stated earlier, applicant no.1 has already lodged two cases against opposite party no.2. At this stage it would be apt to refer case of Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v. State of A.P. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1276, wherein the Apex Court observed that: "14. ...A bare perusal of the complaint, statement of witnesses' and the charge-sheet shows that the allegations against the Appellants are wholly general and omnibus in nature; even if they are taken in their entirety, they do not prima facie make out a case against the Appellants. The material on record neither discloses any particulars of the offences alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned to any of the Appellants in the commission of the offences. 15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of general omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes is not unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, this Court dealt with a similar case wherein the allegations made by the complainant-wife against her in laws u/s. 498A and others were vague and general, lacking any specific role and particulars. The court proceeded to quash the FIR against the accused persons and noted that such a situation, if left unchecked, would result in the abuse of the process of law."

10. In the instant matter also so far the applicant No. 1 and 3 are concerned, only general allegations have been levelled against them. The specific role of causing injuries to the complainant has been assigned to the applicant No. 4 Rahul. Considering material on record no prima facie case is made out against applicant No. 1 and 3 and it appears that the impugned proceedings in respect of applicant no.1 and 3 are counterblast and malicious and thus, the impugned proceedings against applicant No. 1 and 3 are liable to be quashed.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned proceeding, including summoning order, against applicant No. 1 Shivkanti and applicant No. 3 Malti are hereby quashed. The application under section 482 CrPC on behalf of applicant no.1 and 3 is allowed. The application under section 482 Cr.PC on behalf of applicant no.4 is dismissed.

12. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of with the above terms. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 RKM RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. At the outset it was submitted that during pendency of this application, applicant no.2 has since passed away and thus, now this application is being pressed only on behalf of applicant no.1, 3 and 4.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that applicant no.1 is wife of opposite party no.2 and their marriage has taken place in the year 2019. The applicant no.1 was harassed by the opposite party no.2 and his family members and she has filed a complaint under Section 498-A IPC on 23.12.2019 against the opposite party No. 2 and his family members. She has also filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2020 against opposite party no.2. It was submitted that the impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 on

01.03.2021 as a counterblast to those cases. The allegations levelled by opposite party no.2 are wholly false and improbable. Learned counsel has referred statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and submitted that there are material contradictions and that the role of assaulting the complainant with knife has been assigned to applicant no.4 Rahul. Applicant no.3 is sister of applicant no.1. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicants and that impugned proceedings are counter-blast and malicious and thus, liable to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the application and submitted that the complainant has made clear allegations that on 23.02.2021, the applicants came at his house and threatened to implicate him in false case and he was assaulted by them. It was further stated that applicant no.4 Rahul has attacked the complainant with a knife and resultantly he has sustained injuries. The version of complainant is supported by medical examination report. It was submitted that false cases were lodged by the applicant no.1 against opposite party no.2. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that a prima facie case is made out against applicants.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. 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 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.

8. In the instant matter, applicant no.1 is wife of opposite party no.2/ complainant and applicant no. 3 and 4 are her sister and brother. It appears that there was matrimonial dispute between applicant No. 1 and her husband / complainant. It was shown that applicant no.1 has lodged a case under Section 498-A IPC against her husband / complainant and his family members and one case was lodged under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against opposite party no.2 and after that the impugned complaint was lodged by opposite party no.2. The specific role of causing injuries to the complainant has been assigned to applicant no.4 Rahul. Said version of complainant is supported by his medical examination report. In view of the fact that in the alleged incident, there is specific allegation that applicant No. 4 that he has caused knife injuries to the complainant and that version is supported by the medical examination report, a prima facie is made out against the applicant No.4 Rahul. Thus, the instant application on behalf of applicant no.4 Rahul is liable to be dismissed.

9. So far applicant no.1 and 3 are concerned, they are wife and sister-in-law of the complainant and no specific role has been assigned to them. As stated earlier, applicant no.1 has already lodged two cases against opposite party no.2. At this stage it would be apt to refer case of Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v. State of A.P. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1276, wherein the Apex Court observed that: "14. ...A bare perusal of the complaint, statement of witnesses' and the charge-sheet shows that the allegations against the Appellants are wholly general and omnibus in nature; even if they are taken in their entirety, they do not prima facie make out a case against the Appellants. The material on record neither discloses any particulars of the offences alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned to any of the Appellants in the commission of the offences. 15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of general omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes is not unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, this Court dealt with a similar case wherein the allegations made by the complainant-wife against her in laws u/s. 498A and others were vague and general, lacking any specific role and particulars. The court proceeded to quash the FIR against the accused persons and noted that such a situation, if left unchecked, would result in the abuse of the process of law."

10. In the instant matter also so far the applicant No. 1 and 3 are concerned, only general allegations have been levelled against them. The specific role of causing injuries to the complainant has been assigned to the applicant No. 4 Rahul. Considering material on record no prima facie case is made out against applicant No. 1 and 3 and it appears that the impugned proceedings in respect of applicant no.1 and 3 are counterblast and malicious and thus, the impugned proceedings against applicant No. 1 and 3 are liable to be quashed.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned proceeding, including summoning order, against applicant No. 1 Shivkanti and applicant No. 3 Malti are hereby quashed. The application under section 482 CrPC on behalf of applicant no.1 and 3 is allowed. The application under section 482 Cr.PC on behalf of applicant no.4 is dismissed.

12. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of with the above terms. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 RKM RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad