Allahabad High Court
Ramdhani @ Dhani Lal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65603
Court No. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34324 of 2024
Applicant :- Ramdhani @ Dhani Lal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kr Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jyoti Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing the complaint dated 20-09-2017 as well as entire proceedings of complaint case no. 1207/2017, under Sections 420, 506 IPC, P.S. Unj, district Bhadohi.
3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case, the opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging that on 16.01.2017, he had a conversation with the applicant regarding the employment of his daughter-in-law, Chandrakala, a graduate in Arts. The applicant allegedly claimed to have connections with higher authorities in Lucknow and assured that Chandrakala would be appointed as a teacher in a Government Primary School within a month, in exchange for a sum of one and a half lacs, with a promise to return the money if the appointment was not made. On 16.02.2017, opposite party no. 2, along with others, handed over the money to the applicant, and the payment was acknowledged with a receipt on stamp paper. However, the applicant allegedly failed to fulfill the promise and refused to return the money, while also allegedly abusing opposite party no. 2. The learned Magistrate treated the application as a complaint and, after recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoned the applicant to face trial under Sections 420, 406, and 504 IPC on 20.09.2017. The learned counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant is innocent and had no involvement in the transaction, asserting that the opposite party no. 2 contacted him due to prior family relations. Furthermore, he submits that no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out and the entire prosecution story is fabricated, and there was no question of any cheating or threat to the opposite party no. 2.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application and contended that from perusal of the complaint it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant and the Court below has rightly summoned the applicant and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings.
5. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in the instant application. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines under which circumstances the Court should, in its inherent power, entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The guidelines are as follows:-
"(i) 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (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 Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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."
7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in the instant application.
8. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicant. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.
9. Hence, the instant application cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.4.2025
pks
