Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

Applicant :- Angad Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Prakash Srivastava,Sugendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri A.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants praying for quashing cognizance order dated 30.05.2024 and order dated 10.09.2024 passed by A.C.J.M. Court No.9, District-Deoria as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case no.9021 of 2021 u/s 307/34, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.Kotwali, District-Deoria or to stay the effect and operation of afroesaid orders during pendency of this application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that brother of applicant no.1 was murdered by O.P. no.2 for which an FIR was registered u/s 302, 120B IPC as Case Crime No.312 of 2013 wherein after investigation chargesheet was submitted and trial has proceeded. He next submitted that after O.P. no.2 was enlarged on bail he threatened the applicants to enter into compromise in the said matter and just to put pressure on them, O.P. no.2 has moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was initially treated as an FIR, with an allegation that the applicant no.1 has stabbed O.P. no.2. He submitted that after investigation police has submitted final report in the matter twice but later on, on the protest petition filed by O.P. no.2, the application has been treated as a complaint case. After adducing evidence, summoning order has been passed against the applicants vide order dated 30.05.2024 and thereafter bailable warrant has also been issued on 10.09.2024. Both the aforesaid orders have been assailed by the applicant in this application. He next submitted that the medical report does not corroborate the complaint version. No case u/s 307 IPC is made out against the applicants on the basis of evidence available on record. He further submitted that the applicants have never committed any offence as alleged against them. Further submission is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. He also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the application and contended that the complaint is absolutely correct and it has been fully corroborated by the injury report. The injuries report reads as follows:- Injuries

1. Incised wound size 3m x 0.5 m x Muscle deep of the Rt. side of chest 6 cm above to right nipple, bleeding present. Adv. X-ray referred to Surgeon

2. Incised wound 4 cm x 0.3 cm x muscle deep on the left side of chest. 7 cm above to left nipple, bleeding present. Adv. X-ray, referred to Surgeon

3. COP of both abdomen

4. COP of both thigh

5. COP of back neck

6. COP of both air. Opinion.

1. Injury no.(1) and (2) are caused by sharp weapon (object) duration fresh.

2. Injury no.(3) and (6) are cause by hard and blunt object. Injury no.(1) and (2) Adv. X-ray

5. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the Court below has rightly summoned the applicants and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings.

6. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. 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.

7. 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."

8. 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.

9. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicants. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.

10. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Manish Himwan MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Angad Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Prakash Srivastava,Sugendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri A.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants praying for quashing cognizance order dated 30.05.2024 and order dated 10.09.2024 passed by A.C.J.M. Court No.9, District-Deoria as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case no.9021 of 2021 u/s 307/34, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.Kotwali, District-Deoria or to stay the effect and operation of afroesaid orders during pendency of this application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that brother of applicant no.1 was murdered by O.P. no.2 for which an FIR was registered u/s 302, 120B IPC as Case Crime No.312 of 2013 wherein after investigation chargesheet was submitted and trial has proceeded. He next submitted that after O.P. no.2 was enlarged on bail he threatened the applicants to enter into compromise in the said matter and just to put pressure on them, O.P. no.2 has moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was initially treated as an FIR, with an allegation that the applicant no.1 has stabbed O.P. no.2. He submitted that after investigation police has submitted final report in the matter twice but later on, on the protest petition filed by O.P. no.2, the application has been treated as a complaint case. After adducing evidence, summoning order has been passed against the applicants vide order dated 30.05.2024 and thereafter bailable warrant has also been issued on 10.09.2024. Both the aforesaid orders have been assailed by the applicant in this application. He next submitted that the medical report does not corroborate the complaint version. No case u/s 307 IPC is made out against the applicants on the basis of evidence available on record. He further submitted that the applicants have never committed any offence as alleged against them. Further submission is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. He also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the application and contended that the complaint is absolutely correct and it has been fully corroborated by the injury report. The injuries report reads as follows:- Injuries

1. Incised wound size 3m x 0.5 m x Muscle deep of the Rt. side of chest 6 cm above to right nipple, bleeding present. Adv. X-ray referred to Surgeon

2. Incised wound 4 cm x 0.3 cm x muscle deep on the left side of chest. 7 cm above to left nipple, bleeding present. Adv. X-ray, referred to Surgeon

3. COP of both abdomen

4. COP of both thigh

5. COP of back neck

6. COP of both air. Opinion.

1. Injury no.(1) and (2) are caused by sharp weapon (object) duration fresh.

2. Injury no.(3) and (6) are cause by hard and blunt object. Injury no.(1) and (2) Adv. X-ray

5. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the Court below has rightly summoned the applicants and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings.

6. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. 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.

7. 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."

8. 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.

9. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicants. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.

10. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Manish Himwan MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad