State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or p

3. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the first information report of this case was lodged by the opposite party no.2, making false and baseless allegations and charge-sheet was submitted without proper investigation. After registration of the case, co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala has filed a writ petition before this Court for quashing of first information report, which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15172 of 2022. Said co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala has filed criminal appeal against said order dated 17.10.2022 before Hon'ble Apex Court vide Criminal Appeal No.2343 of 2023. In that appeal vide judgment dated 08.08.2023, said order dated 17.10.2022 was set aside and criminal proceedings of aforesaid case arising out from F.I.R. No.195 of 2022, P.S.- Mirzapur, District- Saharanpur, were quashed so far said co- accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala is concerned. On the basis of said judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned proceedings were dropped against applicants vide order dated 16.08.2023, however the said order was set aside by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.) Court No.1, Saharanpur vide order dated 23.02.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.474 of 2023. In pursuant to that order, impugned proceedings have been revived.

4. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the prayer for quashing of order dated 23.02.2024 and 12.03.2024 is not being pressed, however as the proceedings of aforesaid case in respect of co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala have been quashed by Hon'ble Apex Court, thus the impugned proceedings against applicants are also liable to be quashed. In fact, the sole contention raised by learned Senior Advocate is that the case of applicants is on similar footing as that of co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala and as the proceedings of aforesaid case against co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala has been quashed, thus the impugned proceedings are also liable to be quashed.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the application and submitted that after thorough investigation applicants have been charge- sheeted for offence under Sections 376D, 506 IPC. There are allegations of gang rape and that proceedings against co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala were quashed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by inter-alia considering the ground of political bias and it was observed by the Apex Court that Haji Iqbal @ Bala is being targeted, and thus the similar analogy can not be applied in respect of applicants-accused. It was further pointed out that in judgment dated

08.08.2023, it was observed by the Apex Court that so far as other accused persons (applicants herein) are concerned, the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed and that trial is in progress. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court has distinguished the case of applicants from the case of Haji Iqbal @ Bala. Referring to observations of Hon'ble Apex 2 of 6 Court made in judgment dated 08.08.2023, it was submitted that apparently the case of applicants has been distinguished by the Hon'ble Apex Court from co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala, and thus the impugned proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the ground that first information report and consequential proceedings in respect of co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala have been quashed.

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. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held.

8. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that the opposite party no.2 has lodged first information report against applicants and co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala, making several allegations, including allegations of rape. After investigation applicants were charge-sheeted for offence under 3 of 6 Sections 376D, 506 IPC. Learned Magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 25.11.2022 and it could not be disputed that charges against applicants have already been framed and case is pending at the stage of prosecution evidence. Meanwhile, co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala has filed a Writ Petition (No.15172 of 2022) for quashing of first information report of the impugned case, however that writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2022. Co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala has preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein by order dated 08.08.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2343 of 2023, the first information report and proceedings arising out of the said first information report were quashed and order dated 17.10.2022 passed by this Court was set aside.

9. The main contention of learned Senior Advocate for applicants is that the case of the applicants is also on similar footing as that of co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala and the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed on ground of parity. On the other hand, the case of prosecution is that charges have already been framed against applicants and trial is in progress and that the case of applicants has been distinguished by the Hon'ble Apex Court in above referred judgment dated 08.08.2023 and thus the applicants can not claim parity with co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala. Here, it would be pertinent to mention that in first information report there were no allegations of rape against co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala, however, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has made allegations of rape against the co- accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala. Thus, case of applicants is distinguished from that of co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala. Further, in aforesaid judgment dated

08.08.2023, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in Para Nos.11 & 13 as under:- "11. We take notice of the fact that in the entire FIR there is not a whisper of any allegation of rape or criminal intimidation against the appellant herein. All that appears on a plain reading of the FIR is that the appellant has been named as the accused No. 2. The other co-accused persons are directly or indirectly related to the appellant. The appellant is a Vice Chancellor of the Glocal University. We may not go into the serious allegations of political bias, etc. levelled by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, but at the same time we should also not overlook the fact that for some reason or the other, the appellant is being targeted. The appellant has been shown as a history sheeter. If the FIR does not disclose anything against the appellant and even at the end of the investigation, if nothing incriminating has surfaced against the appellant herein, then the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would be nothing but gross abuse of the process of law. It appears that so far as the other co- accused are concerned, the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed. It further appears that the trial is in progress. 4 of 6

13. There is something more to add to the aforesaid and the same goes to the root of the matter. We take notice of the fact that for the alleged act of gang rape of 2018, the FIR came to be lodged sometime in the year 2022 i.e. after almost a period of four years. We do not propose to say anything in regard to delay in lodging the FIR as the trial against the other accused persons is in progress. The Trial Court on its own will examine this aspect. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration. [See :Raju & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 133]"

10. Further, in the said judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that trial against other accused persons (applicants herein) is in progress and that trial Court on its own will examine that aspect.

11. In view of observations of Hon'ble Apex Court it is apparent that the Hon'ble Apex Court has distinguished the case of co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala from rest of the accused persons. As observed earlier, the case of said co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala is also distinguished on the point that in the first information report there were no allegations of rape against him, whereas the complainant has made allegations of rape against applicants. It would also be pertinent to add that charges have already been framed against the applicants and there is nothing to show that applicants have challenged the order of framing of charges. The trial in respect of applicants is stated to be in progress. In view of these facts and circumstances, impugned proceedings can not be quashed merely on the ground that the first information report of this case qua the co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala has been quashed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

12. At this juncture, it would also be relevant to mention that earlier applicants have filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (No.1880 of 2023) for quashing of cognizance order, charge-sheet and proceedings of the case in question, wherein challenge to impugned proceedings was given up on behalf of applicants and only direction was sought regarding bail. That application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was disposed of vide order dated 30.01.2023. Thus, it is apparent that applicants have already challenged the impugned proceedings before this Court and the order dated

30.01.2023 has become final. It could not be said that in view of allegations made in first information report and material collected during investigation, 5 of 6 a prima-facie case is not made out against the applicants. The case of applicants does not fall within any of the category as carved out in case of Bhajan Lal (supra) for quashing of proceedings.

13. It would further be relevant to mention that applicants have filed an application before the trial Court alleging that first information report and consequential proceedings qua co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala have been quashed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and thus the impugned proceedings may be dropped against the applicants and surprisingly that application was allowed by the learned ACJM-IInd Saharanpur and proceedings against applicants were dropped vide order dated 16.08.2023. The prosecution has filed a criminal revision against order dated 16.08.2023, which has been allowed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (MP/MLA) Court No.1, Saharanpur vide judgment dated 23.02.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.474 of 2023 and the order dated

16.08.2023 was set aside. Consequently, the Court of learned Magistrate has revived the impugned proceedings vide order dated 12.03.2024. As stated above, learned counsel for the applicants has not pressed the prayer for quashing of impugned order dated 23.02.2024 and 12.03.2024.

14. In view of aforesaid, it is apparent that case of the applicants is distinguished from that of co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala and the impugned proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the ground that the proceedings against co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala have been quashed. The charges against applicants have already been framed and trial is in progress. Considering all aspects of the matter, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and thus liable to be dismissed.

15. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 06.3.2025 'SP'/- 6 of 6 SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the first information report of this case was lodged by the opposite party no.2, making false and baseless allegations and charge-sheet was submitted without proper investigation. After registration of the case, co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala has filed a writ petition before this Court for quashing of first information report, which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15172 of 2022. Said co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala has filed criminal appeal against said order dated 17.10.2022 before Hon'ble Apex Court vide Criminal Appeal No.2343 of 2023. In that appeal vide judgment dated 08.08.2023, said order dated 17.10.2022 was set aside and criminal proceedings of aforesaid case arising out from F.I.R. No.195 of 2022, P.S.- Mirzapur, District- Saharanpur, were quashed so far said co- accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala is concerned. On the basis of said judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned proceedings were dropped against applicants vide order dated 16.08.2023, however the said order was set aside by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.) Court No.1, Saharanpur vide order dated 23.02.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.474 of 2023. In pursuant to that order, impugned proceedings have been revived.

4. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the prayer for quashing of order dated 23.02.2024 and 12.03.2024 is not being pressed, however as the proceedings of aforesaid case in respect of co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala have been quashed by Hon'ble Apex Court, thus the impugned proceedings against applicants are also liable to be quashed. In fact, the sole contention raised by learned Senior Advocate is that the case of applicants is on similar footing as that of co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala and as the proceedings of aforesaid case against co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala has been quashed, thus the impugned proceedings are also liable to be quashed.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the application and submitted that after thorough investigation applicants have been charge- sheeted for offence under Sections 376D, 506 IPC. There are allegations of gang rape and that proceedings against co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala were quashed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by inter-alia considering the ground of political bias and it was observed by the Apex Court that Haji Iqbal @ Bala is being targeted, and thus the similar analogy can not be applied in respect of applicants-accused. It was further pointed out that in judgment dated

08.08.2023, it was observed by the Apex Court that so far as other accused persons (applicants herein) are concerned, the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed and that trial is in progress. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court has distinguished the case of applicants from the case of Haji Iqbal @ Bala. Referring to observations of Hon'ble Apex 2 of 6 Court made in judgment dated 08.08.2023, it was submitted that apparently the case of applicants has been distinguished by the Hon'ble Apex Court from co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala, and thus the impugned proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the ground that first information report and consequential proceedings in respect of co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala have been quashed.

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. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held.

8. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that the opposite party no.2 has lodged first information report against applicants and co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala, making several allegations, including allegations of rape. After investigation applicants were charge-sheeted for offence under 3 of 6 Sections 376D, 506 IPC. Learned Magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 25.11.2022 and it could not be disputed that charges against applicants have already been framed and case is pending at the stage of prosecution evidence. Meanwhile, co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala has filed a Writ Petition (No.15172 of 2022) for quashing of first information report of the impugned case, however that writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2022. Co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala has preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein by order dated 08.08.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2343 of 2023, the first information report and proceedings arising out of the said first information report were quashed and order dated 17.10.2022 passed by this Court was set aside.

9. The main contention of learned Senior Advocate for applicants is that the case of the applicants is also on similar footing as that of co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala and the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed on ground of parity. On the other hand, the case of prosecution is that charges have already been framed against applicants and trial is in progress and that the case of applicants has been distinguished by the Hon'ble Apex Court in above referred judgment dated 08.08.2023 and thus the applicants can not claim parity with co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala. Here, it would be pertinent to mention that in first information report there were no allegations of rape against co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala, however, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has made allegations of rape against the co- accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala. Thus, case of applicants is distinguished from that of co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala. Further, in aforesaid judgment dated

08.08.2023, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in Para Nos.11 & 13 as under:- "11. We take notice of the fact that in the entire FIR there is not a whisper of any allegation of rape or criminal intimidation against the appellant herein. All that appears on a plain reading of the FIR is that the appellant has been named as the accused No. 2. The other co-accused persons are directly or indirectly related to the appellant. The appellant is a Vice Chancellor of the Glocal University. We may not go into the serious allegations of political bias, etc. levelled by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, but at the same time we should also not overlook the fact that for some reason or the other, the appellant is being targeted. The appellant has been shown as a history sheeter. If the FIR does not disclose anything against the appellant and even at the end of the investigation, if nothing incriminating has surfaced against the appellant herein, then the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would be nothing but gross abuse of the process of law. It appears that so far as the other co- accused are concerned, the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed. It further appears that the trial is in progress. 4 of 6

13. There is something more to add to the aforesaid and the same goes to the root of the matter. We take notice of the fact that for the alleged act of gang rape of 2018, the FIR came to be lodged sometime in the year 2022 i.e. after almost a period of four years. We do not propose to say anything in regard to delay in lodging the FIR as the trial against the other accused persons is in progress. The Trial Court on its own will examine this aspect. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration. [See :Raju & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 133]"

10. Further, in the said judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that trial against other accused persons (applicants herein) is in progress and that trial Court on its own will examine that aspect.

11. In view of observations of Hon'ble Apex Court it is apparent that the Hon'ble Apex Court has distinguished the case of co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala from rest of the accused persons. As observed earlier, the case of said co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala is also distinguished on the point that in the first information report there were no allegations of rape against him, whereas the complainant has made allegations of rape against applicants. It would also be pertinent to add that charges have already been framed against the applicants and there is nothing to show that applicants have challenged the order of framing of charges. The trial in respect of applicants is stated to be in progress. In view of these facts and circumstances, impugned proceedings can not be quashed merely on the ground that the first information report of this case qua the co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala has been quashed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

12. At this juncture, it would also be relevant to mention that earlier applicants have filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (No.1880 of 2023) for quashing of cognizance order, charge-sheet and proceedings of the case in question, wherein challenge to impugned proceedings was given up on behalf of applicants and only direction was sought regarding bail. That application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was disposed of vide order dated 30.01.2023. Thus, it is apparent that applicants have already challenged the impugned proceedings before this Court and the order dated

30.01.2023 has become final. It could not be said that in view of allegations made in first information report and material collected during investigation, 5 of 6 a prima-facie case is not made out against the applicants. The case of applicants does not fall within any of the category as carved out in case of Bhajan Lal (supra) for quashing of proceedings.

13. It would further be relevant to mention that applicants have filed an application before the trial Court alleging that first information report and consequential proceedings qua co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala have been quashed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and thus the impugned proceedings may be dropped against the applicants and surprisingly that application was allowed by the learned ACJM-IInd Saharanpur and proceedings against applicants were dropped vide order dated 16.08.2023. The prosecution has filed a criminal revision against order dated 16.08.2023, which has been allowed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (MP/MLA) Court No.1, Saharanpur vide judgment dated 23.02.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.474 of 2023 and the order dated

16.08.2023 was set aside. Consequently, the Court of learned Magistrate has revived the impugned proceedings vide order dated 12.03.2024. As stated above, learned counsel for the applicants has not pressed the prayer for quashing of impugned order dated 23.02.2024 and 12.03.2024.

14. In view of aforesaid, it is apparent that case of the applicants is distinguished from that of co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala and the impugned proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the ground that the proceedings against co-accused Haji Iqbal @ Bala have been quashed. The charges against applicants have already been framed and trial is in progress. Considering all aspects of the matter, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and thus liable to be dismissed.

15. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 06.3.2025 'SP'/- 6 of 6 SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad