Jugul Kishor And 7 Others vs State Of Up And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 9056 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Jugul Kishor And 7 Others vs State Of Up And Another on 16 April, 2025

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55397
 
Reserved
 
Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17457 of 2024
 
Applicant :- Jugul Kishor And 7 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Dubey,Ram Milan Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashutosh Upadhyay,G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 16.04.2024, of Special Criminal Case No.196 of 2023, (Smt. Anuradha Vs. Jugul Kishor and others), under Sections 395, 120B IPC, Police Station- Atarra, District- Banda, pending before the Court of Special Judge (D.A.A. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Banda.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant No. 8 is son and applicant No. 4 is daughter-in-law of the opposite party No. 2/complainant and other applicants are family members of applicant No. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the dispute is between complainant and her son but the entire family of the wife of her son has been implicated, making general allegations that they came at her house and at point of gun they took away jewellery and cash and she was turned out from her home. The complainant has not sustained any injury. It is submitted that complainant is residing in her house. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that entire family of applicant No. 4 has been implicated as accused by making only general allegations. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned proceedings are malicious and thus, liable to be quashed.

4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 have opposed the application and submitted that the complainant has made clear allegations that all the applicants have come at her house and at point of gun they have robbed various articles including jewellery and cash. It was stated that opposite party No. 2/complainant was forcibly turned out from her home. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that a prima-facie case is made out against the applicants.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 522 the Apex Court elaborated on what evidence and material the High Court can get into in cases where a prayer for quashing a complaint has been made. The Court held:

''Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."

7. The legal position is well settled that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet / complaint may be quashed. Similarly, where the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and inherently improbable or where criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the complaint / proceedings may be quashed..

8. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that applicant No. 4 Anju was married with applicant No. 8 Sarvan, who is son of opposite party No. 2/complainant. It was alleged in the complaint that on 16.08.2023 at about 08:00 PM the applicant Nos. 1 to 7 armed with weapons trespassed into the house of complainant and at the point of weapons they took away household articles, jewellery and cash of Rs. 25,000/- from the house of complainant. In her statement, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has stated that on 16.08.2023 at about 08:00 PM the applicant Nos. 1 to 7 came at her house and at the point of licenced gun, they committed robbery of anklet (payal), bracelet, mangalsutra and cash of Rs. 25,000/- from the house of complainant. In inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., PW-1 Vinod Kumar has also made similar statement. PW-2 Shivlakhan has stated that on 16.08.2023 at about 08:00 PM, he has seen that applicant Nos. 1 to 7 were taking away household articles from the house of complainant. It may be seen that the complainant has not named her son Sarvan (applicant No. 8) in the impugned complaint and the only allegation levelled against applicant No. 8 in her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is that applicant No. 8 is residing along with his wife Anju in the same house. In the alleged incident, no one has sustained any injury. Applicant No. 5 Vinit and applicant No. 7 Ankit are stated to be maternal uncles of applicant No. 4. It appears that the entire family of applicant No. 4 Anju, including her father, mother and maternal uncles, have been implicated as accused. The allegations have been levelled against seven accused persons and no specific role has been assigned to any of them. Further, applicant No. 8 Sarvan, who is son of the complainant, is not named in the impugned complaint. In her statement, recorded under Section 200 CrPC, the complainant has inter-alia stated that applicant No. 8 and his wife Anju (applicant No. 4) have ousted her from her home and they were residing in the same house but that version is not supported by the husband of complainant, who has been examined under section 202 CrPC. In enquiry under section 202 CrPC, two witness namely Vinod Kumar (husband of complainant) and Shivlakhan have been examined and they have not named applicant No. 8 Sarvan. They have not stated any such fact that applicant Nos. 4 and 8 have ousted the complainant from her house. Both the witnesses have merely stated that on 16.08.2022 the applicant Nos. 1 to 7 came at the house of complainant and at point of gun they took away some jewellery items and cash of Rs. 25,000/. As stated above in the incident no one has sustained any injury and no specific role was attributed to any of the accused / applicant. It appears highly improbable that daughter-in-law of complainant, along with her father, mother and maternal uncles, would have indulged in any such incident of dacoity.

9. After considering the material on record it appears that the alleged incident is outcome of family dispute and matter has been blown out of proportion. For the alleged incident the family members and relatives of applicant No. 4 cannot be prosecuted for a heinous like that of dacoity on such vague allegations as alleged by the complainant. It appears that father, mother and maternal uncles of applicant No. 4 have been arrayed as accused with malafide and for wreaking vengeance. Further, applicant No. 8 Sarvan was not named in the impugned complaint and he has been summoned for offence under section 395 read with 120-B IPC. A single accused can not enter in to a criminal conspiracy so as to attract section 120-B IPC. It appears that learned Trial Court has not considered matter in correct perspective while passing the impugned order. Thus, the impugned summoning order is liable to set aside.

10. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned summoning order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Special Judge (D.A.A. Act) / Additional Sessions Judge, Banda to pass an order afresh in accordance with law.

11. The application under section 482 CrPC is disposed of in above terms.

Order Date :- 16.04.2025

Anand