Inderjeet Grover And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 5449 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Inderjeet Grover And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 February, 2025

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Reserved
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26805
 
Court No. - 73
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10064 of 2020
 
Applicant :- Inderjeet Grover And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Dubey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. 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 17.01.2020, of Complaint Case No. 4310 of 2019 (Abhishek Grover Vs. Inderjeet Grover and Others), under Section 500 I.P.C., Police Station - Loni, District- Ghaziabad, pending in the court of 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are father and mother of opposite party no. 2 and the impugned complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 making false and baseless allegations. It was stated that both the applicants are aged about 74 years and that the opposite party no. 2 and his wife used to harass them. In that connection the applicants have made a complaint to the District Magistrate and the possession of the shop of applicants was restored. The applicants have posted a video about the harassment and torture meted out to them by opposite party no. 2 and his wife. The allegation that applicants have made any false or defamatory allegation against opposite party no. 2 is wholly false and in fact they have made complaint regarding the harassment and torture meted out to them. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case under Section 499 I.P.C. is made out and that applicants have been summoned in a routine manner. Learned Magistrate has not considered the facts of the matter and the law and in correct perspective and summoned the applicants for offence under section 500 IPC.

4. Learned A.G.A. submitted that there is family dispute between the complainant and their parents and appropriate order may be passed.

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 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 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605, the Hon'ble 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. The broad guidelines laid down by the Apex court for quashing a criminal complaint read as under:-

"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 channelized 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 1 1992 Supp 1 SCC 335 6 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."

7. 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."

8. In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, the Court observed that inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. However, the Apex Court indicated some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground. Cases may also arise where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged.

9. Thus, the legal position is well settled that where the allegations made in 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.

10. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the opposite party no. 2 / complainant has lodged the impugned complaint against his father and mother, as well as against certain news channels, alleging that due to harassment meted out by applicants, his wife has filed a complaint against applicants under the Domestic Violence Act. In order to counterblast the said complaint, the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 (father and mother of complainant) made false and baseless allegations against the complainant. On 01.07.2019, the applicants have uploaded a video on social media making false and reckless allegation, which was seen by lakhs of persons, due to which it became difficult for the complainant to move out from his house and his business was also affected adversely. In his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has stated that he was running a shop and he used to give his income to his parents but the applicants have harassed his wife and she has filed a case under Domestic Violence Act against applicants. The applicants have uploaded a video of one minute fifty six seconds on face-book, wherein they have stated that their son (complainant) and daughter-in-law were pressurising them to hand over the property to them and they were compelling him to commit suicide. The complainant has further alleged that the allegations made by the applicants were wholly false and that due to publication of said video, the complainant was defamed. It appears that one Rakesh, Udai Narayan and Manju Rai were examined under Section 202 CrPC., and they have inter alia stated that applicants have made and circulated a video containing false allegations and they have seen the same on certain news channels, due to which the perspective of general public towards the complainant has changed and his reputation has has suffered dent. Thus, it is apparent that the main allegations of complainant against his parents is that they have circulated a video on social media containing false and baseless allegations in respect of complainant. It would be pertinent to mention that in the impugned complaint there is nothing to show that what specific allegations were levelled by the applicants against complainant in the alleged video and merely it was alleged that the applicants have made false and baseless allegations in the alleged video. Though, in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has stated that in the alleged video applicants have stated that his son and daughter-in-law were pressurising to hand over their property to them and they were compelling him to commit suicide but in normal course the concern raised by parents about conduct of their son or even making allegations that their son or daughter-in-law was pressurising them to transfer property or harassing them, would not constitute offence of defamation as provided under Section 499 I.P.C. There is nothing to show that the applicants intended any harm to the complainant or they have any intention to defame the complainant. There is no material to show that the allegations raised by applicants against their son (complainant) are false or baseless or that the same were made in order to defame the complainant. It appears that the alleged imputation / accusation were made by the applicants in good faith. In view of attending facts and circumstances of the matter, no case under Section 500 I.P.C. is made out and it appears that impugned proceedings have been instituted with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance on applicants accused. Thus, the impugned proceedings, including summoning order are liable to be quashed.

11. In view of the aforesaid impugned proceedings, including summoning order, of aforesaid case against applicants, namely, Inderjeet Grover and Smt. Pushpa Grover are hereby quashed.

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

Order Date :- 25.2.2025

SK Srivastava