Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 5 (ALL)

Ram Surat Singh v. State of U. P.

2025-01-03

MANOJ BAJAJ

body2025
JUDGMENT : Manoj Bajaj, J. 1. Applicants-Accused have filed this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the Complaint Case No. 1228 of 2011; titled Udai Raj vs. Ram Surat Singh and others, as well as the impugned summoning order dated 27th February, 2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Faizabad, whereby they have been summoned for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, and the entire proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The facts in brief leading to the petition are that initially on the basis of a complaint given by Udai Raj-opposite party no. 2, a Case Crime No. 42 of 2011, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Haiderganj, District Faizabad (Annexure No. 8) was registered, wherein it is alleged that he belongs to a scheduled caste category and is a poor person. The land comprised in Gata No. 638 situated at Village Baintikala, Police Station Haiderganj, District Faizabad is in the name of his mother, and the accused namely Ram Surat Singh alongwith his sons exercised influence upon the officials of the Consolidation department, and by using a forged compromise purportedly on behalf of complainant's mother got the said land entered in their favour. The officials of the Consolidation department also connived with them, and in this regard, on 28th November, 2010, when complainant asked for information from Ram Surat Singh, in response, they all abused him in the name of his caste and extended threats. A complaint was given to the police, but no action was taken, therefore, the complainant resorted to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereupon the above noticed FIR was registered. 3. After registration of the case, the investigation was conducted, and finally, nothing incriminating was found against the accused persons, who were declared innocent through the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. dated 28th April, 2011 (Annexure No. 11). 4. Aggrieved against the said final report, the complainant instituted a protest petition dated 1.7.2011 (Annexure No. 12), and thereafter, in support of the complaint, he got recorded his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and his mother-Faguna Devi also appeared to support his version. 4. Aggrieved against the said final report, the complainant instituted a protest petition dated 1.7.2011 (Annexure No. 12), and thereafter, in support of the complaint, he got recorded his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and his mother-Faguna Devi also appeared to support his version. Considering the contents of the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence, only three accused persons (applicants) were summoned for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, whereas no incriminating evidence was found against the rest of the accused arraigned in the complaint. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants-accused has argued that the entire case of the complainant is based upon documentary material and the allegations contained in the complaint were thoroughly investigated by police initially after FIR (Annexure No. 8) was registered and nothing was found against the accused persons. Learned counsel next submits that the complainant has been taking conflicting stands, who initially in his version contained in the FIR has levelled allegations against Ram Surat Singh and officials of the Consolidation department, but in the protest petition/complaint, he has chosen to implicate the applicant nos. 2 and 3 also. Learned counsel submits that the summoning order dated 27th February, 2016 has been passed in a mechanical manner, and the background of the case, as well as evidence on record has not been carefully examined, much less to record a satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused. Learned counsel has further argued that as per the allegations, the dispute between the parties related to the consolidation proceedings, but the said dispute stands finally adjudicated in favour of the applicants, therefore, it is evident that the prosecution of the accused is attended with malafide. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is against the settled principles of law, therefore, it calls for interference by this Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Notice of the petition was issued to opposite party no. 2-complainant, and as per office report dated 22nd December, 2016, the complainant was effectively served, and to represent him, power of attorney by Mr. Devi Prasad Maurya, Advocate was filed. But, till date, no counter affidavit on behalf of complainant has been filed, and even today no one is present to represent the complainant. 7. 2-complainant, and as per office report dated 22nd December, 2016, the complainant was effectively served, and to represent him, power of attorney by Mr. Devi Prasad Maurya, Advocate was filed. But, till date, no counter affidavit on behalf of complainant has been filed, and even today no one is present to represent the complainant. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicants and considering his submissions, this Court finds that the allegations levelled by the complainant in the FIR were not found to be truthful and noting incriminating was found against the accused, which resulted in submission of final report in favour of the applicants-accused, who were declared innocent. Though, the allegations in the FIR, as well as in the complaint relate to the forged compromise, which had been relied upon by Ram Surat Singh, but once the said consolidation proceedings were finally adjudicated on the strength of the said document, it does not appeal to prudence that the complainant would not challenge the said proceedings. Thus, this amounts acceptance of the said verdict by Faguna and her descendants. 8. That apart, the allegations relating to the forgery and cheating have been disbelieved by the Magistrate as well, as the impugned summoning order dated 27th February, 2016 relates to the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. Similarly, the allegations relating to the alleged offence under SC/ST Act has also not been made out and while examining the statements of the material witnesses, i.e. Udai Raj and Faguna Devi (complainant's mother), this Court finds inconsistency in their statements. The statement of complainant Udai Raj was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 21st October, 2011, wherein there is no mention of intimidation to the complainant, much less by the accused persons, who only stated that when he went to the house of Ram Surat Singh to enquire about the settlement, he abused him in the name of his caste. 9. Likewise, the other statement of Faguna Devi does not lend any strength to the case of the complainant, who was not present at the place of occurrence, and in her statement before the court under Section 202 Cr.P.C., she stated that when her son visited the house of Ram Surat Singh, the applicants-accused abused him in the name of his caste. Thus, the material on record is not enough to prima facie show the commission of alleged offences, but the trial court has proceeded to issue process against the accused in a routine manner. Here, it will be useful to rely upon the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.W. Palantikar and others versus State of Bihar and another, (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 241 . The relevant observations read as under:- "23. Many a times, complaints are filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by the parties with an oblique motive or for collateral purposes to harass, to wreck vengeance, pressurize the accused to bring them to their own terms or to enforce the obligations arising out of breach of contract touching commercial transactions instead of approaching civil courts with a view to realize money at the earliest. It is also to be kept in mind that when parties commit a wrongful act constituting a criminal offence satisfying necessary ingredients of an offence, they cannot be allowed to walk away with an impression that no action could be taken against them on criminal side. A wrongful or illegal act such as criminal breach of trust, misappropriation, cheating or defamation may give rise to action both on civil as well as on criminal side when it is clear from the complaint and sworn statements that necessary ingredients of constituting an offence are made out. May be parties are entitled to proceed on civil side only in a given situation in the absence of an act constituting an offence but not to proceed against the accused in a criminal prosecution. May be parties are entitled to proceed on civil side only in a given situation in the absence of an act constituting an offence but not to proceed against the accused in a criminal prosecution. Hence before issuing a process a Magistrate has to essentially keep in mind the scheme contained in the provisions of Section 200-203 of Cr.P.C. keeping in mind the position of law stated above and pass an order judiciously and not mechanically or in routine manner." xx xx xx xx xx xx " 27 …........The approach and considerations while exercising power and jurisdiction by a Magistrate at the time of issuing process are to be in terms of Sections 200 to 203 under Chapter XV of Criminal Procedure Code, having due regard to the position of law explained in various decisions of this Court, and whereas while exercising power under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code the High Court has to look at the object and purpose for which such power is conferred on it under the said provision. Exercise of inherent power is available to the High Court to give effect to any order under the Criminal Procedure Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This being the position, exercise of power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code should be consistent with the scope and ambit of the same in the light of the decisions aforementioned. In appropriate cases, to prevent judicial process from being an instrument of oppression or harassment in the hands of frustrated or vindictive litigants, exercise of inherent power is not only desirable but necessary also, so that the judicial forum of the Court may not be allowed to be utilized for any oblique motive. When a person approaches the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash the very issue of process, the High Court on the facts and circumstances of a case has to exercise the powers with circumspection as stated above to really serve the purpose and object for which they are conferred." 10. A perusal of the impugned order would also show that the trial court has only referred to the recording of the statements of the witnesses, and has not chosen to comment on the substance of the said statements while summoning the accused. A perusal of the impugned order would also show that the trial court has only referred to the recording of the statements of the witnesses, and has not chosen to comment on the substance of the said statements while summoning the accused. Thus, the impugned order dated 27th February, 2016 is not sustainable and calls for interference by this Court. 11. Further, in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had closely analysed the inherent powers contained in Section 482 Cr.P.C. and laid down clear guidelines for exercise of such power, and held that where the criminal proceedings are attended with malafide intentions, the exercise of inherent powers is justified to prevent the abuse of the process of law. The relevant portion of the decision reads as under:- "The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of 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 channelised 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 non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (4) 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 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. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." (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 specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of 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. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 12. Recently, the Apex Court again followed the above view contained in the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra), in the case of Salib alias Shalu alias Salim Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 947 . Recently, the Apex Court again followed the above view contained in the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra), in the case of Salib alias Shalu alias Salim Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 947 . The relevant observations relating to exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are reproduced hereunder:- " 27. In our opinion, the present case falls within the parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7 resply referred to above. 28. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged." (Emphasis Supplied) 13. Thus, in view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation in holding that impugned complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law, therefore this Court finds it to be a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. Resultantly, the present application succeeds and the Complaint Case No. 1228 of 2011; titled Udai Raj vs. Ram Surat Singh and others, under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, as well as the impugned summoning order dated 27th February, 2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Faizabad, and the proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed. 15. The application is allowed.