Sukhveer Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 6144 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sukhveer Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 March, 2025

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42666
 
Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8423 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Sukhveer Singh And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Tiwari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
 

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

2. This application under Section - 528 BNSS has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 01.12.2018, of Complaint Case No. 415 of 2017, under Sections - 323, 452, 504 I.P.C., Police Station - Rajeypur, District - Farrukhabad, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad. The order dated 23.07.2024, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/special Judge (E.C. Act), Farrukhabad in Criminal Revision No. 42 of 2023 is also being impugned.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that regarding an incident dated 18.05.2016 applicant no.1 has lodged a first information report against husband of opposite party no.2 for offence under Section 307, 323, 504 I.P.C. and after that the impugned complaint was lodged on 20.05.2016 by the opposite party no.2, as a counter blast. It was submitted that the husband of opposite party no.2 has sustained merely simple injuries. Learned counsel has referred facts of the matter and statement of complainant and of witnesses and submitted that the impugned proceedings are counter blast and malicious and thus, liable to be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in the alleged incident the husband of opposite party no.2 has sustained ten injuries and that the version of complainant is supported by the witnesses examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C.. Referring to statement of complainant and of witnesses, it was submitted that a prima facie case is made out against 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 of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 605, Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash F.I.R. or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

7. At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that revision against summoning order dated 01.12.2018 has already been dismissed by the Session Court. It is correct that availing of the remedy of the revision before the Sessions Judge under Section 399 CrPC does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High Court under Section 482 but it is equally true that the High Court should not act as a second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. While exercising its inherent powers in such a matter it must be conscious of the fact that the Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his revisory power in the matter.

8. In Deepti aliasArati Rai v. Akhil Rai & Ors, (1995) 5 SCC 751, the Apex Court held that second revision application, after dismissal of the first one by sessions court is not maintainable and that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilized for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. In case of Laxmi Bai Patel Vs. Shyam Kumar Patel; 2002 0 Supreme (SC) 283, the Court held:

"3. Before taking up the merits of the case, it would be proper to consider the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482Cr.P.C. of the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a case where the sessions court exercising revisional power under Section 397(3)Cr.P.C. has dismissed the revision petition by the aggrieved party, a second revision petition about acceptance of the same party is barred. The position is well- settled that in such a case power under Section 482Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court in rare cases and in exceptional circumstances where the court finds that permitting the impugned order to remain undisturbed will amount to abuse of process of the court and will result in failure of justice."

9. Similarly in the case of Dharampal & Ors. v. Ramshri; 1993 (1) SCC 435, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that-

" .... Section 397(3) bars a second revision application by the same party. It is now well-settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code cannot be utilized for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. Hence, the High Court had clearly erred in entertaining the second revision at the instance of Respondent 1. Onthis short ground itself, the impugned order of the High Court can be set aside."

10. In the case of Rajathi Vs. C.Ganesan; 1999 SCC (Cri) 1118, the Court held as follows:-

"In Krishnan v. Krishnaveni(1997 (4) SCC 241 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 544), this Court explained the scope and power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. The question before the Court was if in view of the bar of second revision under sub-section (3) of Section 397 of the Code was prohibited, whether inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482 of the Code. Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section 397(3) of the Code, a person - accused/complainant - cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under Section 397(1) or under inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397(3) or Section 397(2) of the Code. It is seen that the High Court has suo motu power under Section 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Code. So, when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional power under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code. As stated earlier, it may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings.''

11. Thus, once the revision against summoning order is dismissed, the High Court in power under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. would interfere only where it is shown that if the complaint is allowed to be proceeded with, it would amount to abuse of the process of Court or that interest of justice otherwise call for quashing of the complaint. The provisions of Section - 482 Cr.P.C. have reincarnated in Section - 528 of BNSS. Hence, similar analogy would be applicable in respect of application under Section - 528 BNSS.

12. In the instant matter, it appears that in the alleged incident dated 18.05.2016, both the parties have sustained injuries. Regarding that incident, applicant no.1 has lodged first information report on 18.05.2016 against husband of opposite party no.2 and others and regarding same incident the opposite party no.2 has lodged the impugned complaint on 20.05.2016. As both the sides have sustained injuries and a cross version has been put up by the opposite party no.2, the case involves determination of questions of fact, which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the Trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the Trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section - 528 BNSS.

13. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out. The application u/s - 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.

14. The application u/s 528 BNSS is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 17.3.2025

S Rawat