Allahabad High Court
Shalini Alias Khusboo And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 May, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86364
Court No. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42591 of 2024
Applicant :- Shalini Alias Khusboo And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash order dated 14.12.2023 passed by C.J.M./FTC, Auraiya in Complaint Case No.401 of 2022 (Sandeep Shukla vs. Shalini @ Khusboo and another) u/s 380, 506 IPC, P.S.Dibyapur, District Auraiya.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant no.1 is wife of O.P. no.2 and applicant no.2 is brother of applicant no.1. He submitted that marriage of applicant no.1 was solemnized on 29.11.2017 and thereafter out of matrimonial discord applicant no.1 was thrown out of her matrimonial home. O.P. no.2 filed a complaint against the applicants on 11.01.2022 and thereafter an FIR was lodged by applicant no. 1 against O.P. no.2 and his family members on 28.01.2022 u/s 323, 504, 498AIPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. He submitted that applicant no.1 has also moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Apart from this, applicant no.1 has also preferred a case under the Domestic Violence Act against O.P. no.2. He submitted that in the complaint filed by O.P. no.2 after adducing evidence summons have been issued on 14.12.2023, which has been assailed in this application. He further submitted that the entire proceeding initiated by O.P. no.2 is a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by applicant no.1 against him.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application and contended that it is not a counter blast case, in fact O.P. no.2 has initiated the proceedings much prior to the various proceedings initiated by applicant no.1 against him. It is further submitted that the Court below has rightly summoned the applicants and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is quite apparent from record that the proceedings initiated by O.P. no.2 is not a counter blast case. The applicant at first has instituted the complaint case and thereafter, various proceedings have been initiated by applicant no.1. 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 applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court.
7. 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."
8. 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 an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. 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 applicants. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.
10. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.5.2025
Manish Himwan
