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

1. Heard Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Shri Shashidhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

2. The instant application has been filed by the applicants praying for quashing of the summoning order dated 25-04-2024 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1273/9 of 2022, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sikhera, district Muzaffar Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 23.08.2022 for lodging an F.I.R. against the applicants, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1273/9 of 2022 under Sections 452, 323, 504, and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sikhera, District Muzaffarnagar. The learned Magistrate, instead of directing the registration of an F.I.R., treated the same as a complaint and recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate summoned the applicants on 25.04.2024 under Sections 452, 323, 504, and 506 I.P.C. The applicants, by means of the instant application, have challenged the summoning order as well as the entire proceedings. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the complaint filed by opposite party no. 2 is baseless and has been lodged under the undue influence of her father and brothers as a counterblast to the F.I.R. filed by applicant no. 1, which was registered as case crime no. 122 of 2021. The allegations of assault made by opposite party no. 2 are vague, general, and lack any specific details or supporting medical evidence. Furthermore, the complaint is highly delayed, with no explanation provided for the inordinate delay, making the allegations suspect. The statements of the witnesses, recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., are from interested parties and cannot be deemed as independent witnesses. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case, and that the court below passed the summoning order in a mechanical manner, without proper application of judicial mind.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application and contended that from perusal of the complaint it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants and the Court below has rightly summoned the applicant and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the 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 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 in the instant application. 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 the instant application.

8. 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.

9. Hence, the instant application cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Shri Shashidhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

2. The instant application has been filed by the applicants praying for quashing of the summoning order dated 25-04-2024 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1273/9 of 2022, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Sikhera, district Muzaffar Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 23.08.2022 for lodging an F.I.R. against the applicants, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1273/9 of 2022 under Sections 452, 323, 504, and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sikhera, District Muzaffarnagar. The learned Magistrate, instead of directing the registration of an F.I.R., treated the same as a complaint and recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate summoned the applicants on 25.04.2024 under Sections 452, 323, 504, and 506 I.P.C. The applicants, by means of the instant application, have challenged the summoning order as well as the entire proceedings. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the complaint filed by opposite party no. 2 is baseless and has been lodged under the undue influence of her father and brothers as a counterblast to the F.I.R. filed by applicant no. 1, which was registered as case crime no. 122 of 2021. The allegations of assault made by opposite party no. 2 are vague, general, and lack any specific details or supporting medical evidence. Furthermore, the complaint is highly delayed, with no explanation provided for the inordinate delay, making the allegations suspect. The statements of the witnesses, recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., are from interested parties and cannot be deemed as independent witnesses. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case, and that the court below passed the summoning order in a mechanical manner, without proper application of judicial mind.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application and contended that from perusal of the complaint it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants and the Court below has rightly summoned the applicant and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the 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 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 in the instant application. 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 the instant application.

8. 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.

9. Hence, the instant application cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad