Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 609 (ALL)

Santosh Kumar v. State of U. P.

2024-02-27

VIKRAM D.CHAUHAN

body2024
JUDGMENT : VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 31.5.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Gorakhpur in Complaint Case No. 3915 of 2017, Jai Narayan vs. Shri Ram and Others, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur along with the entire proceedings. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that as per the allegations in the complaint, it is alleged that the opposite party no. 2/complainant had executed a sale deed in favour of wife of applicant no. 2 for an area of 15 decimal. However, in the consolidation proceedings, the area in favour of the wife of applicant no. 2 has been recorded 21 ayer from Arazi No. 591 and from another Arazi No. 665, 37 ayer and in this respect, proceedings before the Consolidation Officer is going on. A perusal of the complaint and the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of the opposite party no. 2 would demonstrate that the incident is of 12.10.2017 when both the sides were negotiating where the dispute arose and it is alleged that the complainant was beaten by the accused persons including the applicants, as a result of the same, the opposite party no. 2 suffered injuries. The accused persons have also abused the opposite party no. 2. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that no such incident has taken place and the applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 3 were not at the place of incident on the date when the incident taken places. The present criminal proceedings are abuse of process of law and no offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants. 5. Sri Anil Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the present application and submits that in the complaint specific allegation has been made with regard to the complaint being beaten by the accused persons and suffered injuries. The injuries are not condition precedent for proceedings under Section 323 I.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the present application and submits that in the complaint specific allegation has been made with regard to the complaint being beaten by the accused persons and suffered injuries. The injuries are not condition precedent for proceedings under Section 323 I.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has drawn attention to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Lakshman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), 2021 (1) SCC 191. He submits that since the complainant has suffered injury and he has made a statement before the court concerned under Section 200 Cr.P.C. therefore, the present application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. However, he does not dispute the fact that the proceedings for correction of the record are pending before the consolidation court. 7. In the present case, it is to be seen that the complainant/opposite party no. 2 has filed a complaint with the allegation that the complainant has sold the land to the wife of applicant no. 2 to the extent of 15 decimal in Arazi No. 591. However, during consolidation proceedings, the name of wife of applicant no. 2 has been recorded to the extent of 21 ayer in Arazi No. 591 and upto 37 ayer in Arazi No. 665. The complainant is disputing the consolidation proceedings and in this respect, proceedings are going on before the consolidation court. 8. It is further to be seen that in the complaint the occurrence has taken place on 12.7.2017 where both the parties were negotiating for settlement in which a dispute arose and it is alleged that the accused persons have beaten the complainant, as a result of the same, the complainant sustained injuries. The accused persons have also abused the complainant. On the aforesaid basis, summoning order has been issued against the applicant under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. 9. It is to be noted that in the complaint as well as in the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. it is alleged that the accused persons including the applicants have beaten the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant could not dispute the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lakshman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (supra) to the extent that the injury report is not a condition precedent for summoning an accused under Section 323 I.P.C. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant could not dispute the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lakshman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (supra) to the extent that the injury report is not a condition precedent for summoning an accused under Section 323 I.P.C. 10. It is also to be noted that once the complainant on oath has stated before the court concerned of having being beaten and suffered injuries, then the court committed no error in summoning the applicants under Section 323 I.P.C. 11. It is further to be noted that it has been alleged by the complainant that the accused persons have abused and have threatened for life. However, as per the allegation no specification has been stated in the complaint nor in the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The allegation with regard to abusive language as well as threatening are required to be specific. A vague allegation in this respect cannot be permitted as it has to be seen that the words uttered constitute offence under Section 504, 506 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 agrees that in the present case, the allegation with regard to use of abusive language and threatening are vague in nature. He could not demonstrate from the record as to what was the language used at the time of occurrence. 12. Once the criminal law is being put to motion by a complainant, his case is required to be specific and vague and sweeping allegation against a person violates the fundamental right of accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the liberty can be infringed only when the allegations are within the four corners of law. The summoning order dated 31.5.2018in respect of summoning the applicant under Section 504 and 506 I.P.C. is not tenable and is hereby set aside. The court concerned is directed to proceed against the applicant in the aforesaid case only in respect of Section 323 I.P.C. 13. With the aforesaid directions, the present application is partly allowed.