IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
Chandra Bhan Alias Lalla and Others - Applicants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another - Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 12982 of 2009
Decided On : 21-08-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of complaint - Applicants sought to quash summoning order and proceedings in a complaint case based on same facts as a previous FIR - Court held that the complaint was an abuse of process of law as it reopened a case already concluded - Petition allowed. (Paras 27)
(B) Inherent Powers - The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 can be invoked to quash proceedings that are frivolous or vexatious, or where the allegations do not constitute an offence - The court emphasized the need for caution in exercising this power. (Paras 22)
Facts of the case:
The applicants challenged a summoning order in a complaint case filed after a previous FIR was concluded, alleging that the complaint was filed to exert pressure on the accused. (Paras 3, 4, 11)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the complaint was not maintainable after a significant delay and based on the same allegations as the earlier FIR. (Paras 20, 27)
Issues: The main issue was whether the subsequent complaint was maintainable given the prior resolution of the same matter. (Paras 10, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that reopening a case based on previously resolved allegations constitutes an abuse of process, warranting quashing of the complaint. (Paras 27)
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.
1. As per office report dated 20.08.2024, notice has reportedly been served on opposite party no.2 personally.
2. Heard Sri Akshay Raj Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pradeep Chandra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. In the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed to quash the summoning order dated 20.04.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun in Complaint Case No.70 of 2009, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act P.S. Ait, District Jalaun and also to quash the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No.70 of 2009 with regard to said matter.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that opposite party no.2 Lala Ram filed a complaint case with averments that he belongs to scheduled caste category and he was working as a labourer in the field of Munni Babu, who is a co-villager. He was subjected to forced labour, day in and day out. In the intervening night of 17/18.04.2000 at 3:30 hours when opposite party no.2 was taking rest in Khalihan of Munni Babu, he asked him to come and do work whereupon he requested him for being permitted to have rest, then the accused, Munni Babu abused him by caste specific words, thereafter accused, Chandra Bhan alias Lalla, on being exhorted by Munni Babu took licensee gun of Munni Babu and fired at complainant which hit him on thigh and he became injured. Accused, Amar Singh and Kallu were also present there. They subsequently assaulted the complainant by butt of Rifle. The case was reported by his brother at police station but the report was not lodged in proper manner and charge sheet was filed wrongly under Section 338 IPC and that too against accused Chandrabhan @ Lalla only in which accused got himself saved by confessing the offence of Section 338 IPC after paying Rs.1,000/- as fine. The applicant stated that he was suffering from fire arm injuries received on his thigh and unable to walk.
5. He next submitted that on the similar facts F.I.R. was lodged on 14.04.2000 at the instance of one Raghubir, brother of the injured Lala Ram and same was registered vide Crime No. 40 of 2000, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (X) of SC/ST Act. However, the case under Section 307 IPC was not found to be made out during investigation and charge sheet was filed under Section 338 IPC against petitioner No.1 only. The said criminal case was decided on the basis of confession against one of the applicants viz Chandrabhan @ Lalla recorded by learned court below for charge under Section 338 IPC. The present complaint case has been filed only to make pressure on the accused persons after conclusion of police case instituted on same set of facts. He lastly submitted that the prosecution in the complaint case is abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer made in present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and submitted that the filing of complaint case after conclusion of police case instituted on same facts, has been duly explained by the complainant/injured in the complaint itself. The impugned summary order is legally and factually sound and just. It needs no interference in present proceedings.
7. From perusal of material on record, it appears that an FIR was lodged initially in the case at the instance of Raghubir son of Zalim Chamar against the accused Lalla @ Chandrabhan Niranjan, Amar Singh, Munni Babu and Kallu. The accused belonged to same family. The FIR was drawn on the basis of written report filed by the informant vide Crime No.40 of 2000 under Sections 307/504/506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, at Police Station Ait, District Jalaun at Orai in which an acquisition was made to the effect that on 17.04.2000 at around 3:30 am accused persons abused and intentionally insulted Lalaram, the real brother of the informant when he was taking rest in
Joseph Salvaraja A v. State of Gujarat (2011) 7 SCC 59
Sushil Sethi and another Vs The State of Arunachal Pradesh and others (2020) 3 SCC 240
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra
State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.
State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla
Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque
G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.
The court ruled that a subsequent complaint based on previously resolved allegations constitutes an abuse of process, justifying its quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The court emphasized that allegations lacking evidence do not justify the summoning of accused, highlighting the necessity of due diligence by the Magistrate under Section 482 of the CrPC.
The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the credibility of allegations and exercising inherent powers to prevent abuse of the legal process.
The court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice, allowing for investigation into allegations.
Point of Law : Powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see ....
Point of law : Insulting/hurting anyone’s feelings on account of his caste, religion, tribe, language, etc., deprecated. The learned counsel referring these judgments vehemently contended that the co....
The SC/ST Act should not be invoked for civil disputes, and criminal proceedings must not be misused for personal vendettas.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.