State of U.P v. Ram Chandra & Another bearing Case Crime No

Criminal Case No. 15079/2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 193/2021 be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that they have been falsely implicated in this fabricated matter. He next submits that the application is a 'counter blast' because applicant Ram Chandra's wife had previously lodged FIR (Case Crime No. 159/2021) against the victim's Jeth (Rajesh) under Section 323, 504, 354 IPC and 9/10 of POCSO Act. Therefore, to take vengeance, the applicants have been roped in this case. He next submits that there are material contradictions in the victim's statements: in the initial FIR, she stated that both applicants committed rape, but before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that applicant no.2 (Ramesh) committed rape on her while applicant no.1 (Chandar) threatened her with a country- made pistol (Katta). He emphasizes that no such incident occurred, and the charge sheet is mala fide. He submits that the applicants have no criminal antecedents.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants further points out that the victim herself willingly refused to undergo a medical examination on 18.11.2021, which strongly suggests that the allegations of rape are false and made only to settle the score in the ongoing family dispute. He stresses that the entire family, including the victim, is trying to protect her Jeth Rajesh, who was previously sent to jail based on a complaint filed by the applicant no.1's wife. He finally contends that the material facts presented by the defence, particularly the motive of vengeance and the absence of a proper medical report, are of impeccable quality, and if accepted, conclusively rule out the prosecution's case. Therefore, allowing the prosecution to proceed would constitute a sheer abuse of the process of law. 2 A482 No. 9018 of 2025

5. On the basis of the above contention, he submits that the charge sheet filed against them be quashed, and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.15079 of 2023; State of U.P. vs. Ram Chandra & Another bearing Case Crime No.193 of 2021, under Sections 376-D, 506 I.P.C., Police Station, Atariya, District- Sitapur before the ACJM-II be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the FIR has been lodged based on a real incident and true facts are narrated therein. He next submits that from the very inception, the victim accuses the applicants to catch her when she had gone for natural call and forcibly committing rape on her. He argues that the victim gave a consistent statement to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He next submits that this is a case where a group of persons committed a serious sexual offense against the victim, which is an offense against society. He, therefore, submits that this petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

7. Learned AGA further submits that the alleged contradictions in the victim's statement are minor in nature and do not touch the core of the prosecution story, which remains a clear and consistent allegation of gang rape under Section 376-D I.P.C. The mere fact that the victim refused the internal medical examination does not invalidate her sworn testimony given before the Magistrate, which is strong substantive evidence. He next contends that the defence of 'alibi' claimed by the applicants, regarding their presence at a birthday party, is a matter of evidence that needs to be tested during the trial and cannot be relied upon at the stage of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to completely demolish the prosecution case which is supported by a charge sheet.

8. I have heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. On perusal of the records, it transpires that this application has been moved by the applicants under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet in Case Crime No. 193 of 2021.

9. To enter into the facts of the matter, the proposition of law is expedient to mention here, which is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal; 1992 SCCR 226, the Hon'ble Court stated in Para 102, which reads as under:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of 3 A482 No. 9018 of 2025 any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) 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. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable 42 PART E offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) 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. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (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 concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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."

10. Looking at the allegations in the present case against the applicants—Ram Chandra @ Chandar and Ramesh—and considering the fact that a Charge Sheet has been filed after a thorough investigation, this Court cannot say that the case falls 4 A482 No. 9018 of 2025 clearly within any of the category as carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 102 of Bhajan Lal (supra). Specifically, the core allegation is of Gang Rape under Section 376-D I.P.C., a serious cognizable offence, which is supported by the victim's sworn statement under under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The applicants' argument of 'vengeance' (category 7) involves disputed questions of fact and requires a mini-trial to determine the mala fide intent, which is beyond the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants are a manifest abuse of the process of the court, warranting quashing.

11. In the case of State of Odisha Vs. Pratima Mohanty and Others; (2022) 16 SCC 703, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) can be used by the High Court in two main situations: to stop the misuse of any court's process or to secure real justice. While it's impossible to list every single scenario where this power should be used, the court illustrated several categories as examples. Essentially, the High Court can step in and quash or cancel a First Information Report (FIR) or criminal case if the allegations, even if taken as completely true, do not actually point to a crime, or if the allegations are utterly ridiculous or unbelievable. Furthermore, this power is applied when the police start an investigation without the proper legal authority, or if there is a clear legal rule that stops the case from continuing or if another effective solution exists for the grievance. Most importantly, the High Court will intervene when it is clear that the criminal case is driven by bad faith (mala fide), instituted maliciously, or started simply to take revenge or settle a personal score against the accused.

12. Thus, from the above, it is apparent that the power of quashing of a police report/criminal proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and in rare cases. Normally, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed where, after a thorough investigation, a charge sheet has been filed. In the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of U.P.; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947, decided on

02.09.2025, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down guidelines to be followed to determine the veracity of the prayer for quashing, especially in cases of rape, by invoking the power vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:

1. Whether the material relied upon by the accused (defence material) is sound, reasonable, and material is of sterling and impeccable quality. indubitable (unquestionable), meaning

2. Whether the material relied upon by the accused, if accepted, would rule out the assertions contained in the complaint or charges.

3. Whether the prosecution or complainant has refuted this material, or whether it is of a nature that cannot reasonably be disputed. 5 A482 No. 9018 of 2025

4. Whether allowing the prosecution to proceed would amount to an abuse of the judicial process and whether its continuation would fail to serve the interests of justice.

13. The case of Smt. Bachchi Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Another; Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 6400 of 2025, is factually distinguishable and does not assist the petitioner.

14. In view of the above, on the perusal of the record available, it transpires that the victim in the FIR mentioned that on 11.07.2021, at about 07:00 PM, when she was going for a natural call, the petitioners Chandra and Ramesh caught hold of her and, on the pointing of a Desi Katta, committed rape on her forcibly. During the investigation, she stated to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the applicants accused Ramesh and Chandar caught hold of her, fell her down, and Ramesh committed rape on her while Chandar threatened her on the point of Katta and threatened to kill her.

15. This Court observes that the allegations made by the victim under under Section 164 Cr.P.C. squarely satisfy the ingredients of the offences under Sections 376-D and 506 I.P.C., and the material available on record does not establish any ground for the court to conclude that the present case is merely a counter blast or a complete falsehood. The question of whether the case is motivated by vengeance is a matter to be examined by the Trial Court after the cross-examination of the witnesses. Furthermore, the defence material concerning the victim's refusal of the medical examination and the alibi of the applicants is not "indubitable" or "impeccable" enough at this preliminary stage to completely rule out the assertions contained in the Charge Sheet, as mandated by the Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani guidelines. A detailed evaluation of the evidence, including the reliability of the victim's testimony and the defence of alibi, must be reserved for the trial court. Thus, there is a clear allegation of rape under Section 376-D I.P.C., which is serious in nature and an offense against society.

16. In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants regarding the previous FIR being a 'counter blast' is concerned, it is to be clarified that this is not the stage of trial, and at this stage, a 'mini-trial' cannot be conducted. Minute scrutiny of the material produced before the court is not required.

17. The material placed before the Court clearly and prima facie indicates that a cognizable offence is made out, and a thorough investigation has resulted in the filing of a Charge Sheet. The arguments regarding contradictions in the statements and the motive of the victim involve disputed questions of fact that can only be determined during the trial by the competent court. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to conduct such a roving inquiry. The instant case does not fall within the rare category laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court where the continuance of the criminal 6 A482 No. 9018 of 2025 proceedings would be an abuse of the judicial process.

18. In view of above, considering the over all facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court has rightly and in accordance with law, after analyzing the evidence and material on record appropriately, has proceeded with the case, as the allegations are supported by the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage. The application has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds concerning the scope of quashing.

19. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. November 13, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Criminal Case No. 15079/2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 193/2021 be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that they have been falsely implicated in this fabricated matter. He next submits that the application is a 'counter blast' because applicant Ram Chandra's wife had previously lodged FIR (Case Crime No. 159/2021) against the victim's Jeth (Rajesh) under Section 323, 504, 354 IPC and 9/10 of POCSO Act. Therefore, to take vengeance, the applicants have been roped in this case. He next submits that there are material contradictions in the victim's statements: in the initial FIR, she stated that both applicants committed rape, but before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that applicant no.2 (Ramesh) committed rape on her while applicant no.1 (Chandar) threatened her with a country- made pistol (Katta). He emphasizes that no such incident occurred, and the charge sheet is mala fide. He submits that the applicants have no criminal antecedents.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants further points out that the victim herself willingly refused to undergo a medical examination on 18.11.2021, which strongly suggests that the allegations of rape are false and made only to settle the score in the ongoing family dispute. He stresses that the entire family, including the victim, is trying to protect her Jeth Rajesh, who was previously sent to jail based on a complaint filed by the applicant no.1's wife. He finally contends that the material facts presented by the defence, particularly the motive of vengeance and the absence of a proper medical report, are of impeccable quality, and if accepted, conclusively rule out the prosecution's case. Therefore, allowing the prosecution to proceed would constitute a sheer abuse of the process of law. 2 A482 No. 9018 of 2025

5. On the basis of the above contention, he submits that the charge sheet filed against them be quashed, and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.15079 of 2023; State of U.P. vs. Ram Chandra & Another bearing Case Crime No.193 of 2021, under Sections 376-D, 506 I.P.C., Police Station, Atariya, District- Sitapur before the ACJM-II be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the FIR has been lodged based on a real incident and true facts are narrated therein. He next submits that from the very inception, the victim accuses the applicants to catch her when she had gone for natural call and forcibly committing rape on her. He argues that the victim gave a consistent statement to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He next submits that this is a case where a group of persons committed a serious sexual offense against the victim, which is an offense against society. He, therefore, submits that this petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

7. Learned AGA further submits that the alleged contradictions in the victim's statement are minor in nature and do not touch the core of the prosecution story, which remains a clear and consistent allegation of gang rape under Section 376-D I.P.C. The mere fact that the victim refused the internal medical examination does not invalidate her sworn testimony given before the Magistrate, which is strong substantive evidence. He next contends that the defence of 'alibi' claimed by the applicants, regarding their presence at a birthday party, is a matter of evidence that needs to be tested during the trial and cannot be relied upon at the stage of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to completely demolish the prosecution case which is supported by a charge sheet.

8. I have heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. On perusal of the records, it transpires that this application has been moved by the applicants under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet in Case Crime No. 193 of 2021.

9. To enter into the facts of the matter, the proposition of law is expedient to mention here, which is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal; 1992 SCCR 226, the Hon'ble Court stated in Para 102, which reads as under:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of 3 A482 No. 9018 of 2025 any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) 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. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable 42 PART E offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) 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. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (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 concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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."

10. Looking at the allegations in the present case against the applicants—Ram Chandra @ Chandar and Ramesh—and considering the fact that a Charge Sheet has been filed after a thorough investigation, this Court cannot say that the case falls 4 A482 No. 9018 of 2025 clearly within any of the category as carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 102 of Bhajan Lal (supra). Specifically, the core allegation is of Gang Rape under Section 376-D I.P.C., a serious cognizable offence, which is supported by the victim's sworn statement under under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The applicants' argument of 'vengeance' (category 7) involves disputed questions of fact and requires a mini-trial to determine the mala fide intent, which is beyond the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants are a manifest abuse of the process of the court, warranting quashing.

11. In the case of State of Odisha Vs. Pratima Mohanty and Others; (2022) 16 SCC 703, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) can be used by the High Court in two main situations: to stop the misuse of any court's process or to secure real justice. While it's impossible to list every single scenario where this power should be used, the court illustrated several categories as examples. Essentially, the High Court can step in and quash or cancel a First Information Report (FIR) or criminal case if the allegations, even if taken as completely true, do not actually point to a crime, or if the allegations are utterly ridiculous or unbelievable. Furthermore, this power is applied when the police start an investigation without the proper legal authority, or if there is a clear legal rule that stops the case from continuing or if another effective solution exists for the grievance. Most importantly, the High Court will intervene when it is clear that the criminal case is driven by bad faith (mala fide), instituted maliciously, or started simply to take revenge or settle a personal score against the accused.

12. Thus, from the above, it is apparent that the power of quashing of a police report/criminal proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and in rare cases. Normally, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed where, after a thorough investigation, a charge sheet has been filed. In the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of U.P.; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947, decided on

02.09.2025, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down guidelines to be followed to determine the veracity of the prayer for quashing, especially in cases of rape, by invoking the power vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:

1. Whether the material relied upon by the accused (defence material) is sound, reasonable, and material is of sterling and impeccable quality. indubitable (unquestionable), meaning

2. Whether the material relied upon by the accused, if accepted, would rule out the assertions contained in the complaint or charges.

3. Whether the prosecution or complainant has refuted this material, or whether it is of a nature that cannot reasonably be disputed. 5 A482 No. 9018 of 2025

4. Whether allowing the prosecution to proceed would amount to an abuse of the judicial process and whether its continuation would fail to serve the interests of justice.

13. The case of Smt. Bachchi Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Another; Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 6400 of 2025, is factually distinguishable and does not assist the petitioner.

14. In view of the above, on the perusal of the record available, it transpires that the victim in the FIR mentioned that on 11.07.2021, at about 07:00 PM, when she was going for a natural call, the petitioners Chandra and Ramesh caught hold of her and, on the pointing of a Desi Katta, committed rape on her forcibly. During the investigation, she stated to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the applicants accused Ramesh and Chandar caught hold of her, fell her down, and Ramesh committed rape on her while Chandar threatened her on the point of Katta and threatened to kill her.

15. This Court observes that the allegations made by the victim under under Section 164 Cr.P.C. squarely satisfy the ingredients of the offences under Sections 376-D and 506 I.P.C., and the material available on record does not establish any ground for the court to conclude that the present case is merely a counter blast or a complete falsehood. The question of whether the case is motivated by vengeance is a matter to be examined by the Trial Court after the cross-examination of the witnesses. Furthermore, the defence material concerning the victim's refusal of the medical examination and the alibi of the applicants is not "indubitable" or "impeccable" enough at this preliminary stage to completely rule out the assertions contained in the Charge Sheet, as mandated by the Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani guidelines. A detailed evaluation of the evidence, including the reliability of the victim's testimony and the defence of alibi, must be reserved for the trial court. Thus, there is a clear allegation of rape under Section 376-D I.P.C., which is serious in nature and an offense against society.

16. In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants regarding the previous FIR being a 'counter blast' is concerned, it is to be clarified that this is not the stage of trial, and at this stage, a 'mini-trial' cannot be conducted. Minute scrutiny of the material produced before the court is not required.

17. The material placed before the Court clearly and prima facie indicates that a cognizable offence is made out, and a thorough investigation has resulted in the filing of a Charge Sheet. The arguments regarding contradictions in the statements and the motive of the victim involve disputed questions of fact that can only be determined during the trial by the competent court. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to conduct such a roving inquiry. The instant case does not fall within the rare category laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court where the continuance of the criminal 6 A482 No. 9018 of 2025 proceedings would be an abuse of the judicial process.

18. In view of above, considering the over all facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court has rightly and in accordance with law, after analyzing the evidence and material on record appropriately, has proceeded with the case, as the allegations are supported by the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage. The application has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds concerning the scope of quashing.

19. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. November 13, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench