Pappu vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 11482 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 

 
Court No. - 92
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10015 of 2009
 

 
Applicant :- Pappu
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- V.P. Singh Kashyap
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. Heard Sri V.P. Singh Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application has been filed with the prayer for quashing the Criminal Case No. 605 of 2007 pending in the Court of C.J.M. Badaun, State vs. Pappu in Case Crime No. 9 of 2007 u/s 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Kunwargaon, District-Badaun.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the victim's father, Prem Pal Sharma S/o Mahavir Prasad had lodged an FIR at P.S. Kunwargaon, District Badaun alleging that on 25.12.2006 at 5.00 pm, when his minor daughter had gone to ease herself out, she was enticed away by the applicant with the help of Sanjeev and Smt. Madhuri. It was further alleged that his minor daughter could not be found thereafter. The FIR was lodged after a delay of about one month i.e. on 21.1.2007.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has alleged that the investigating officer, in collusion with the informant, has filed a charge-sheet under duress without even recording the statement of victim. It is pertinent to mention here that the statement of the victim was recorded after the intervention of the High Court vide its order dated 25.8.2008. The statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 25.8.2008, which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying the application, categorically states that the age of the victim is 24 years and she has gone out of her own sweet will with the applicant Pappu, and she got married with him on 6.1.2007. That she is living with her husband Pappu (applicant) and a son is born out of the wedlock. She has also categorically stated that her father was against her husband marrying her and has lodged false FIR out of the vengeance. She wants to live with her husband. She should not be separated from her husband and child. Her husband has been falsely implicated in the case.

5. It has been opined in Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2020) 13 SCC 435 that the inherent powers of the High Court can be exercised to prohibit the abuse of process of Court. Paragraph 10 of the judgment is being reproduced hereinunder:-

"10. Before we enter into facts of the present case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to look into the scope and ambit of inherent jurisdiction which is exercised by the High Court Under Section 482 CrPC. This Court had the occasion to consider the scope and jurisdiction of Section 482 CrPC. This Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., 1992 suppl. (1) SCC 335, had elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 CrPC/Article 226 of the Constitution in the context of quashing the criminal proceedings. In para 102, this Court enumerated seven categories of cases where power can be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 CrPC by the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. Para 102 is as follows:

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 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 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 the 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 the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide 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.

6. The Apex Court has opined in Vineet Kumar and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2017) 13 SCC 369 that the proceeding maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive should not be allowed to continue. The relevant paragraph 23 is being reproduced hereinunder :-

"23. This Court time and again has examined scope of jurisdiction of High Court Under Section 482 CrPC and laid down several principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Ors., 1977 (2) SCC 699, held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. In para 7 of the judgment, the following has been stated:

7....In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."

7. In the instant case, the abuse of process of Court is apparent on its face as the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was never recorded and had she been a minor, the matter of  her consent would have paled into insignificance, but she has categorically stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she is major and the same fact has been substantiated by the age certificate filed by the applicant certified by the C.M.O. Budaun which states that her age on 4.10.2008 was 22 years. Thus, her age on the date of occurrence cannot be less than twenty years. Hence, she is major and has attained the age of consent. The impugned charge sheet is clearly a misuse of process of Court and the prosecution lodged therein cannot be allowed to be continued.

8. The subject matter of the present case falls under category ''(7)' of the State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

9. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that permitting the criminal proceedings, which have been maliciously instituted with ulterior motive against the applicant and it shall be nothing but the abuse of process of Court needs to be interfered by this Court. This case falls within the four walls of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

10. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 605 of 2007 pending in the Court of C.J.M. Badaun, State vs. Pappu, in Case Crime No. 9 of 2007 u/s 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Kunwargaon, District-Badaun are quashed. The application is, accordingly, allowed.

Order Date :- 15.12.2021

Shalini