Aarti Devi vs State Of Up And 12 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4824 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Aarti Devi vs State Of Up And 12 Others on 10 February, 2025

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18823
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25621 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Aarti Devi
 
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 12 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Girish Pratap Singh,Manish Nath Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 28.02.2024, passed by learned Special Judge, Ananya Special Court (S.C./S.T. Act), Maharajganj, in Complaint Case No. 77 of 2023 (CNR No. UPMH-010019012023) [Aarti Devi Vs. Sunil Yadav and Others], Police Station- Kothibhar, District- Maharajganj, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant against opposite party nos. 2 to 13 has been dismissed under Section - 203 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has lodged a complaint against opposite party no. 2 to 13, making allegations that in order to take illegal possession over the land of applicant, the said opposite parties have assaulted the applicant and using caste indicative words they have threatened her. It was submitted that in view of allegations made by the applicant/complainant in the complaint as well as in statement under Section - 200 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case was made out. The version of applicant/complainant was also supported by the witnesses examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C.. It was submitted that in view of aforesaid facts, impugned order is not sustainable and thus, liable to be set aside.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The impugned complaint was lodged against 12 persons making general and vague allegations that they have assaulted the applicant and abused her by using caste indicative words.

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

6. Before proceeding further, it would be expedient to go through the provisions as enunciated under Sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C., which reads as under :-

Section 203 Cr.P.C.

"Dismissal of complaint- If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing,"

Section 204 Cr.P.C.

"204.Issue of process. (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be-

(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or

(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction."

7. Thus, it is clear that as per the procedure prescribed for proceedings with regard to the complaint case after recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202 Cr.P.C., if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further, he may dismiss the complaint. It is well settled that if a bare perusal of a complaint or the evidence led in support of it shows that essential ingredients of the offence alleged are absent or that the dispute is only a civil nature or that there are such patent absurdities in evidence produced that it would be a waste of time to proceed further, the complaint could be properly dismissed under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code.

8. What the Magistrate had to determine at the stage of issue of process was not the correctness of the probability or improbability of individual items of evidence on disputable grounds, but the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case on the assumption that what was stated could be true unless the prosecution allegations were so fantastic that they could not reasonably be held to be true.

9. In S.N. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar and another AIR 2001 SC 12960, while examining the scope of section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 has held as under :

"15. In case of a complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. or IPC a Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence made out and then has to examine the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused to issue process so that the issue of process is prevented on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass. Such examination is provided in order to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding. The words 'sufficient ground' used under Section 202 have to be construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction.

16. This Court in Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. The State of West Bengal and others, (1993)(3)SCC 753), in para 22, referring to scheme of Sections 200-203 of Cr.P.C. has explained that "The section does not say that a regular trial of adjudging truth or otherwise of the person complained against should take place at that stage, for, such a person can be called upon to answer the accusation made against him only when a process has been issued and he is on trial. Section 203 consists of two parts. The first part lays down the materials which the Magistrate must consider, and the second part says that if after considering those materials there is in his judgment not sufficient ground for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint. In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose (1964 (1)SCR 639) where dismissal of a complaint by the Magistrate at the stage of Section 2092 inquiry was set aside, this Court laid down that the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction, and observed (p.653) that where there was prima facie evidence, even though the person charged of an offence in the complaint might have a defence, the matter had to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue a process could not be refused. Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is self-contradictory, or intrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if that evidence makes out a prima facie case."

17. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kongalgi (1976(3) SCC 736) this Court dealing with the scope of inquiry under Section 202 has stated that it is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint (a) on the materials placed by the complainant before the Court (b) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; (C) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. It is also indicated by way of illustration in which cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process can be quashed on such case being "where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused."

10. In the instant case perusal of record shows that the applicant/complainant, in her statement under Section - 200 Cr.P.C., has stated that on 06.05.2022 at about 11:00 P.M., the opposite party nos. 2 to 13 came at her land and assaulted her and used caste indicative words against her. It is apparent that only general and vague allegations have been levelled against 12 accused persons and no specific role has been assigned to any of them. Though, it was shown that applicant/complainant was admitted in the hospital but there is no injury report of the complainant. Considering aforesaid position of law in relation to facts of the present case, it can not be said that the conclusion arrived by the trial court are against facts or law. The complaint has been dismissed by the learned Special Judge by a reasoned order. No such material illegality or abuse of the process could be shown in respect of impugned order, so as to require any interference by this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Order Date :- 10.2.2025

S Rawat