Allahabad High Court
Uttam Kumar Maurya @ Uttam Kumar Maurya vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. ... on 6 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:70806
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9233 of 2025
Uttam Kumar Maurya @ Uttam Kumar Maurya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Istekhaf, Avinash Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 23
HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for the following main reliefs:-
"(i) Stay the effect, operation and implementation of the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 03.09.2011 and all proceedings arising out of Complaint case No. 993 of 2011, under Sections 323/504/506/436 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh, pending before the Additional Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, during the pendency of the accompanying petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.;
(ii) Stay the effect, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 23.11.2011 Bailable warrant of Rs 10000 was issued against the applicants/accused, order dated 18.09.2013 Non- Bailable warrant was issued against the applicants/accused and order dated 23.07.2016 Non-Bailable warrant/ 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the applicants/accused till date."
3. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that on 13.04.2011 the complainant, namely, Smt. Phoolmati Maurya filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.20, Pratapgarh. The said application was accepted by the learned court and directed the Station House Officer, Police Station- Lalganj, District- Pratapgarh to register an FIR and conduct investigation against the accused persons. In compliance of the said order, the FIR was registered on 11.05.2011 bearing FIR/Case Crime No.125 of 2011, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 436 I.P.C., copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the application. Upon investigation, it was found that the complaint was moved with malafide intention as there was a property and partition dispute between the parties. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted final report no.33 of 2011 dated 24.05.2011 before the concerned court. Despite the final report submitted, the complainant again moved a fresh complaint on 10.06.2011 before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) with similar allegations against the applicants and one Dayaram Maurya. The complainant again moved a fresh complaint on 03.09.2011 before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.20, Pratapgarh in which the learned court issued summons under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 436 I.P.C. against the applicants and co-accused - Dayaram Verma. When the complainant failed to appear before the court or in absence of any protest petition against the said final report, the learned court accepted the final report no.33 of 2011 in FIR No.125 of 2011.
4. During investigation statements of witnesses were recorded and the site was inspected. After thorough investigation the Investigating Officer submitted final report No.33 of 2011 dated 24.05.2022 concluding that the allegations were not substantiated and that the complainant, owning to partition related family enmity had lodged a false and motivated complaint. The final report was submitted before the learned Magistrate, who after notice of the complainant considered the case file and finding no material evidence against the applicants, accepted the final report on 06.12.2014 in Lok Adalat proceedings, relying upon the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chitranjan Mirgha Vs. Dulal Ghosh etc., reported in 2009 (6) SCC 661 and Varun Sharma & others Vs. State of U.P. & others, reported in 2011(1) JIC 107 Allahabad, despite such acceptance of the final report the learned Magistrate had earlier, on 03.09.2011 taken cognizance and issued summon to the present applicants giving rise to the present application.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the acceptance of the final report by the learned Magistrate on 06.12.2014 clearly culminated the criminal proceedings, hence the prior cognizance order dated 03.02.2011 cannot survive. The FIR was based solely on personal enmity regarding property partition, there was no ocular or documentary evidence against the applicant. The continuation of proceedings despite the final report being accepted amounts to abuse of the process of law.
6. Learned A.G.A. fairly submitted that the State has no objection if upon verification of the report, the proceedings have indeed culminated in acceptance of the final report.
7. After consideration and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the Investigating Officer after due investigation found no evidence against the applicant and filed final report dated 24.05.2011. The learned Magistrate after examining the police report and considering the absence of any protest petition or material evidence from the complainant accepted the final report on 06.12.2014. Once the final report was accepted, there remained no criminal proceedings pending against the applicants. Consequently, the earlier cognizance or summoning order automatically becomes redundant. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice as propounded by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid and also the observation made by the Apex Court in the judgment passed in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (supra), the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 03.09.2011 and all proceedings arising out of Complaint case No. 993 of 2011, under Sections 323/504/506/436 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh, pending before the Additional Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, are hereby quashed.
9. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off accordingly.
(Rajeev Bharti,J.)
November 6, 2025
Anand/-
