Inamul Haq v. State of U.P. & others) as well as summoning order dated

1. Heard Ms. Sufia Saba, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of the judgement and order dated 28.05.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 133 of 2023 (Inamul Haq vs. State of U.P. & others) as well as summoning order dated 07.02.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 2nd Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 855 of 2021 (now Complaint Case No. 10232 of 2023) (Kareem Fatma vs. Islamul Haq and others), under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Mandi, District Saharanpur, pending in the Court of CJM, Saharanpur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the mother of applicant had filed a complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegation that complaint herself and opposite party no. 2 and 3 are the owner of half share of the property in question and opposite party no. 2 and 3 with ulterior motive to usurp the share of applicant mother have sold their share to opposite party no. 4 and 5. Learned Magistrate after recording the evidence under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. issued summons vide order dated 19.07.2018, under sections 420, 323, 324, 120-B, 504, 506 I.P.C.. In the meantime complainant died and applicant being heir was substituted in the complaint case. Aggrieved with the summoning order opposite party nos. 2 to 5 have filed criminal revision, the Revisional Court while entertaining the matter set aside the summoning order and remitted the matter back for reconsideration vide order dated 21.03.2020. Thereafter, learned Magistrate rehear the matter and again issued summoning order under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. vide order dated 07.02.2023. This summoning order was assailed by the applicant in criminal revision and the Revisional Court vide order dated 28.05.2024 rejected the revision filed by the applicant. Same is under challenge by way of the instant application with the allegation that Revisional Court without considering the claim of the applicant, rejected the revision in a very cursory manner.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application and contended that there is no illegality in the order passed by the revisional court as the same has been rejected after considering the evidence on record, therefore, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as in on going proceedings.

5. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that Revisional Court committed grave error in rejecting the criminal revision filed by the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines under which circumstances the Court should, in its inherent power, entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The guidelines are as follows:- "(i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgements mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged in the application as well as the observation made by the Revisional Court while rejecting the criminal revision, it is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.

9. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Bhanu BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Ms. Sufia Saba, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of the judgement and order dated 28.05.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 133 of 2023 (Inamul Haq vs. State of U.P. & others) as well as summoning order dated 07.02.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 2nd Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 855 of 2021 (now Complaint Case No. 10232 of 2023) (Kareem Fatma vs. Islamul Haq and others), under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Mandi, District Saharanpur, pending in the Court of CJM, Saharanpur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the mother of applicant had filed a complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegation that complaint herself and opposite party no. 2 and 3 are the owner of half share of the property in question and opposite party no. 2 and 3 with ulterior motive to usurp the share of applicant mother have sold their share to opposite party no. 4 and 5. Learned Magistrate after recording the evidence under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. issued summons vide order dated 19.07.2018, under sections 420, 323, 324, 120-B, 504, 506 I.P.C.. In the meantime complainant died and applicant being heir was substituted in the complaint case. Aggrieved with the summoning order opposite party nos. 2 to 5 have filed criminal revision, the Revisional Court while entertaining the matter set aside the summoning order and remitted the matter back for reconsideration vide order dated 21.03.2020. Thereafter, learned Magistrate rehear the matter and again issued summoning order under section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. vide order dated 07.02.2023. This summoning order was assailed by the applicant in criminal revision and the Revisional Court vide order dated 28.05.2024 rejected the revision filed by the applicant. Same is under challenge by way of the instant application with the allegation that Revisional Court without considering the claim of the applicant, rejected the revision in a very cursory manner.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application and contended that there is no illegality in the order passed by the revisional court as the same has been rejected after considering the evidence on record, therefore, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as in on going proceedings.

5. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that Revisional Court committed grave error in rejecting the criminal revision filed by the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines under which circumstances the Court should, in its inherent power, entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The guidelines are as follows:- "(i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 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. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgements mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged in the application as well as the observation made by the Revisional Court while rejecting the criminal revision, it is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.

9. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Bhanu BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad