Mohammad Nasir And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 9060 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mohammad Nasir And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. 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:56487
 
Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1040 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Mohammad Nasir And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Shiromani Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 despite service of notice.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 06.03.2023, of Complaint Case No. 1869 of 2022, under Sections - 323, 452, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Amroha Nagar, District Amroha, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)-I/J.M.-I, Amroha.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that applicant No. 3 Nasrin was married with brother-in-law (Devar) of opposite party No. 2 on 17.02.2019 and she was harassed by her husband and his family members. On 28.12.2020 the applicant No. 3 has lodged a first information report under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act against her husband and his family members, including opposite party No. 2. In that matter after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted. After that the opposite party No. 2 has lodged impugned complaint on 05.09.2022 making allegations that on 24.08.2022 applicants trespassed into the house of complainant and torn her clothes and tried to strangulate her. It was submitted that the allegations levelled by opposite party No. 2 are inherently improbable and that the impugned complaint has been lodged as a counterblast to the case lodged by applicant No. 3. It was submitted that the impugned proceedings are counterblast and malicious and thus, liable to be quashed.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted the impugned summoning order has been passed by considering the material on record and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned proceedings.

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

6. Section - 482 Cr.PC. saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (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 Court held :-

''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.''

7. In landmark judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Court held as under:

"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 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 a 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 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."

8. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, it was observed that 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.

9. Keeping aforesaid legal position in view, in the instant matter on perusal of record it appears that the applicant No. 3 Nasrin was married with brother-in-law (Devar) of opposite party No. 2 on 17.02.2019. On 28.12.2020, the applicant No. 3 has lodged a first information report under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act against her husband and his family members, including opposite party No. 2. In that matter after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted. After that the opposite party No. 2 has lodged impugned complaint on 05.09.2022 making allegations that on 24.08.2022 applicants trespassed into her house and torn her clothes and tried to strangle her. In the alleged incident, complainant had not sustained any injury. Besides the applicant no.3, her father, brother and one more relative has been impleaded as accused. It is not probable that the father and brother of applicant no.3 along with their relative would indulge in any such incident. The attending facts clearly show that the opposite party no.2/complainant has lodged the impugned complaint as a counter blast in order to settle score. The impugned proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide and the same were maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, wrecking vengeance on the applicants-accused. The instant matter is squarely covered in aforesaid category (7) of the judgment of case of Bhajan Lal (supra). As stated earlier, in exercise of the powers the 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. In the present matter, considering entire facts of matter a case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out.

10. In view of aforesaid, the entire impugned proceedings including summoning order of aforesaid complaint case are hereby quashed.

11. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

Order Date :- 16.4.2025

Rama Kant