Raj Bahadur And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 5181 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33957 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Raj Bahadur And 5 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shanker Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

By means of this Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer is made to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.669/2022, Murti Devi Vs. Raj Bahadur and others, CNR No.40006452020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 467, 468, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Sarai Khawaja, District Jaunpur, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) (VII)th/ Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the husband of opposite party no.2 is still alive but showing her husband to be dead opposite party no.2 sold the property of her husband to Laldei, her sister-in-law (jethani). It is further submitted that, though, in the complaint there is allegation that on 26.09.2019 at 11:00 a.m., when the opposite party no.2 had come to look after her property in the village, she was surrounded by the accused persons, abused by them and when resisted applicant Raj Bahadur and his sons Deepak and Ravi Kumar (applicants) thrashed her with kicks and blows. On her hue and cry, she was saved by her neighbours. It is further submitted that in the statement of the victim under Section 200 Cr.P.C., incident dated 26.09.2019 has not been mentioned. There is also no allegation that the victim/ opposite party no.2 was abused or given threat of life. It is further submitted that as per judgment Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, Criminal Appeal No.759 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4820/2017], decided on April 26, 2019, for the offence under Section 504 I.P.C., there should be an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 I.P.C. Again placing the same judgment, it is submitted that for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C., the ingredients of this section have to be proved by the prosecution and it is said that neither the ingredients of Section 504 I.P.C. nor the ingredients of Section 506 I.P.C. can be said to have proved by the statement of the complainant/opposite party no.2 or her witnesses. Regarding, Section 323 I.P.C., it is submitted that as per Section 319 I.P.C., whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt and as no bodily pain, disease or infirmity is said to have caused by the applicants, so the applicants cannot be summoned for voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 I.P.C. also.

If we go through the complaint, it is true that mentioning incident dated 26.09.2019 at 11:00 a.m., the allegation is made that accused persons surrounded the complainant/ opposite party no.2, herald wild abuses and when resisted, she was beaten up by Raj Bahadur and his sons Deepak and Ravi Kumar. The role of exhortation is assigned to applicants Hari Narayan Pal and Radhey Shyam Pal. However, no role is shown to be assigned to applicant Neelam Pal.

In the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has clearly stated that after the death of her husband Satiram in the year 2018 applicants Raj Bahadur, Deepak and Ravi Kumar did not permit her to live in the house. They thrashed her and when she sold the property of her deceased husband, the accused persons with the connivance of Pradhan Neelam Pal (applicant) made forged certificate that her husband is alive and a suit of cancellation of sale deed is filed by them. In the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C., witness Laldei has stated that as Murti Devi was being harassed at the hands of her brother-in-law (Raj Bahadur) and his sons Deepak and Ravi Kumar, so she started living in her parental house, where her husband had died. When the name of Murti Devi and her son Anil Kumar @ Babloo was mutated and sale deed was executed in favour of Laldei (witness), Raj Bahadur and his sons Deepak and Ravi Kumar were annoyed. On 26.09.2019 at 11:00 a.m., when Murti Devi had come to look after her property all the accused persons started saying that by forgery she has got her name mutated, that name shall be deleted and they started thrashing her. They also gave her threat that if Murti Devi would come to live there, she would be put to death. Thus, it is claimed that the opposite party no.2 neither made any allegation of abusing or giving threat of life, nor she has stated regarding incident dated 26.09.2019 in her statement, so no offence can be said to be made out against the applicants. Hence, prayer is made accordingly.

The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2. He has submitted that case under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. can clearly be said to be made out against the applicants. The attention of the Court is drawn towards the summoning order dated 16.09.2022, whereby all the six applicants were summoned to face trial under Sections 323, 504, 506, 467, 468 & 120B I.P.C. but in a revision preferred by the applicant no.1 during the pendency of the present application, the revisional court passed an order dated 10.01.2023 whereby Sections 467, 468 and 120B I.P.C. were deleted.

It is an admitted fact that as the order of the revisional court dated 10.01.2023 was passed during the pendency of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., so Sections 467, 468 & 120B I.P.C. could not be deleted here. The case before the Court now is under section 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and prayer is made to quash the entire proceedings of the complaint.

If we go through the statement of the victim under Section 200 Cr.P.C. she has clearly stated in her statement that after the death of her husband in the year 2018 her brother-in-law (jeth), Raj Bahadur and his sons Deepak and Ravi Kumar did not permit her to live in the house and they thrashed her. It is true that the victim has not mentioned in her statement that she was abused or given threat of life but she has very clearly stated that she was thrashed at the hands of applicant nos.1, 2 and 3. Though, the witness Laldei in her statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has supported the incident dated 26.09.2019 regarding thrashing and giving threat of life to the victim by all the applicants.

If we go through the complaint, there is clear allegation of opposite party no.2 that she was being thrashed at the hands of Raj Bahadur and his sons Deepak and Ravi Kumar. Though in the complaint, it is also mentioned that victim was surrounded by Raj Bahadur, Deepak, Ravi Kumar, Hari Narayan Pal and Radhey Shyam Pal and they started abusing the victim, but there is no allegation against applicant Neelam Pal in the whole complaint. The role of applicants Hari Narayan Pal and Radhey Shyam Pal is shown to be of surrounding and exhortation. Nothing has been said regarding their role in the statement of the victim under Section 200 Cr.P.C. In her statement there is no mention of any abuses or threat given by the applicants.

Thus, in my opinion, the summoning of the applicants Hari Narayan Pal and Radhey Shyam Pal, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. is bad in law. So far as, the applicant nos.1, 2 & 3- Raj Bahadur, Deepak and Ravi Kumar are concerned, there is allegation of thrashing the victim at their hands and an offence under Section 323 I.P.C. can clearly be said to be made out against them. So far as the offence under Sections 504 & 506 I.P.C. are concerned, the victim has not stated even a single word about this offence in her statement. Witness Lal Dei (PW-1) has also not made any statement regarding abusing to the victim by any of the applicants. Though, she has supported the version that the victim was being thrashed at the hands of Raj Bahadur and his sons Deepak and Ravi Kumar.

In my opinion, a case under Section 323 I.P.C. can very well be said to be made out against applicant nos.1, 2 & 3. Hence, the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.669/ 2022, Murti Devi Vs. Raj Bahadur and others, CNR No.40006452020, under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sarai Khawaja, District Jaunpur, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) (VII)th/ Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, are hereby quashed against applicants Neelam Pal, Hari Narayan Pal and Radhey Shyam Pal.

So far as the proceedings of aforementioned Complaint Case No. 669/2022 against applicant nos.1, 2 and 3 are concerned, the proceedings under Sections 504 & 506 I.P.C. are hereby quashed against them and from today onwards the Complaint Case No.669/ 2022 shall proceed against applicant nos.1, 2 and 3 under Section 323 I.P.C.

The Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed partly.

Order Date :- 16.2.2023

Radhika