# Abid & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 18951 of 2015
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-29
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 18951 of 2015
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abid-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46202
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal law-Criminal Procedure Code (2 of
1974) - Section 482 - Quashing of charge
sheet & entire proceeding - FIR lodged
u/Ss.363,366,354,506,342,120-B of IPC -
Accusation that accused enticed away
victim & sum of Rs.5,00,000/ and also took
away gold & silver ornament - in medical
examination victim was found to be 18 yrs
old - Victim in her statement u/s 164 CrPC
stated she left her house out of her own
sweet & she was never enticed by anyone-
Held - Victim a major grown up girl - had
gone willingly with accused - no force was
applied to outrage her modesty nor she
was kidnapped and that she married
accused out of her own sweet will and is
living as husband and wife with him - No
offence made out - Court quashed entire
proceeding. (Para 21)

Application Allowed (E-5)

List of cases cited :

## Text

3-5 All. Abid & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1701
(2020)03-05ILR A1701
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 18951 of 2015

Abid & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri A.P. Tewari, R.S. Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Criminal law-Criminal Procedure Code (2 of
1974) - Section 482 - Quashing of charge
sheet & entire proceeding - FIR lodged
u/Ss.363,366,354,506,342,120-B of IPC -
Accusation that accused enticed away
victim & sum of Rs.5,00,000/ and also took
away gold & silver ornament - in medical
examination victim was found to be 18 yrs
old - Victim in her statement u/s 164 CrPC
stated she left her house out of her own
sweet & she was never enticed by anyone-
Held - Victim a major grown up girl - had
gone willingly with accused - no force was
applied to outrage her modesty nor she
was kidnapped and that she married
accused out of her own sweet will and is
living as husband and wife with him - No
offence made out - Court quashed entire
proceeding. (Para 21)

Application Allowed (E-5)

List of cases cited :

1. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp(1) SCC
335

2. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692
3. Rupan Deol Bajaj Vs Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
(1995) 6 SCC 194

4.C.B.I. Vs Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., (1996)
5 SCC 591

5. St. of Bihar Vs Rajendra Agrawalla (1996) 8
SCC 164

6. Rajesh Bajaj Vs St. NCT of Delhi (1999) 3
SCC 259

7.Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd Vs
Biological E. Ltd (2000) 3 SCC 269

8. Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs St. of Bihar
(2000) 4 SCC 168

9. M. Krishnan Vs Vijay Singh (2001) 8 SCC 645

10. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Sharaful Haque ( 2005) 1 SCC 122

11. Rishipal Singh Vs St. of U.P. and Anr., AIR
2014 SC 2567

12. Om Prakash & ors. Vs St. of Jharkhand 2012
(12) SCC 72

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

1. List revised.

2. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2
is not present.

3. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. This application has been filed
with a prayer to quash the impugned
charge sheet dated 15.02.2014 in Case
Crime No. 2287 of 2013, under Sections
363, 366, 354, 506, 342, 120-B I.P.C. as
well as entire proceeding of S.T. No. 1200
of 2014 "State Vs. Abid and another"
under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police
Station- Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad.
1702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Brief facts of the case are that
opposite party no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. on
18.12.2013 against five accused persons
alleging therein that his fourteen year old
daughter Kumari Laxmi @ Kavita studying
in Class VIII was enticed away by the
applicants with the help of his family
members on 17.12.2013. It is further
alleged that when he searched in his house,
then, he found that sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
and jewellery was also taken away by
them. After investigation, charge sheet was
submitted against the applicants.

6. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the applicants that
applicants approached this Court by means
of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12735
of 2015 (Nizam and another Vs. State of
U.P. and 2 others) and the boy Nizam,
petitioner no. 1 whereas victim - Kumari
Laxmi @ Kavita, petitioner no. 2 appeared
in person before this Court and the Hon'ble
Court vide order dated 25.05.2015, directed
that in case the petitioners approach the
S.S.P.
concerned
to
provide
them
protection for the purposes of appearing
before the court concerned to record the
statement of the kidnapped girl under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., and for medical
examination, the same may be provided.

7. In pursuance of the order dated
25.05.2015, medical of the girl was
conducted and she was found to be 18 year
old. As per the statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. of the victim, which was recorded
on 09.06.2015, she has stated that she had
left her house as she was annoyed with her
parents, who were forcing her for marriage.
Therefore, she left her house out of her own
sweet will on 17.12.2013 and went to
Gujarat to stay with her friend Ruksar. She
has further stated that she had gone all
alone. She knows Nizam since last two
years and has performed Niqah with him on
13.12.2015 and they were staying as
husband and wife. She was never enticed
by anyone, wherever she went, it was out
of her own sweet will.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that no offence under the relevant
Sections is made out against the applicants.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the
State has argued that from the allegations
leveled in the impugned F.I.R. and
statement of the victim recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as from the
statement of other witnesses recorded by
the
police
during
the
course
of
investigation and the material collected by
it, the case against the applicants for
commission of offence is punishable under
Sections 363, 366, 354, 506, 342, 120B
I.P.C. are made out. Hence, no interference
is called for by this Court while exercising
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
and this Criminal Misc. Application is
liable to be dismissed.

10. There is no doubt that the Court
should be very careful while exercising the
powers
under
section
482
Cr.P.C.
particularly in the matters of quashing of
charge sheet.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
plethora of judgments has laid down the
guidelines with regard to exercise of
jurisdiction by the High Courts under
section 482 Cr.P.C. In State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has listed the
categories of cases when the power under
section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the
High Courts. The law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal (supra) has later on followed
3-5 All. Abid & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1703
in various decisions. To mention a few --
Madhavrao
Jiwajirao
Scindia
v.
Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao
Angre,
(1988) 1 SCC 692; State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal,1992 Supp (1) SCC 335;
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh
Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194; Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries
Ltd (1996) 5 SCC 591; State of Bihar v.
Rajendra Agrawalla (1996) 8 SCC 164,
Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi,
(1999) 3 SCC 259; Medchl Chemicals &
Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd
(2000) 3 SCC 269 Hridaya Ranjan
Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4
SCC 168, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh
(2001)
8
SCC
645
and
Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd.
Sharaful Haque ( 2005) 1 SCC 122. The
principles relevant are as under:

"(i) A complaint can be quashed
where
the
allegations
made
in
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 the case alleged against the
accused. For this purpose, the complaint
has to be examined as a whole, but without
examining the merits of the allegations.
Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous
analysis of the material nor an assessment
of the reliability or genuineness of the
allegations in the complaint, is warranted
while examining prayer for quashing of a
complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be
quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process
of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is
found to have been initiated with mala
fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to
cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd
and inherently improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not,
however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate
prosecution. The power should be used
sparingly and with abundant caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required
to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients
of the offence alleged. If the necessary
factual foundation is laid in the complaint,
merely on the ground that a few ingredients
have not been stated in detail, the
proceedings
should
not
be
quashed.
Quashing of the complaint is warranted
only where the complaint is so bereft of
even the basic facts which are absolutely
necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make
out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a
criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as
also a criminal offence. A commercial
transaction or a contractual dispute, apart
from furnishing a cause of action for
seeking remedy in civil law, may also
involve a criminal offence. As the nature
and scope of a civil proceeding are
different from a criminal proceeding, the
mere fact that the complaint relates to a
commercial transaction or breach of
contract, for which a civil remedy is
available or has been availed, is not by
itself a ground to quash the criminal
proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a
criminal offence or not."

12. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Rishipal Singh vs. State of U.P.
and Anr., AIR 2014 SC 2567 has held as
under:

13. This Court in plethora of
judgments has laid down the guidelines
with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by
the Courts under Section 482, Cr.P.C. In
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992
Supp(1) SCC 335, this Court has listed the
categories of cases when the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the
1704 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court. These principles or the guidelines
were reiterated by this Court in Central
Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro
Industries Ltd. 1996 (5) SCC 591; Rajesh
Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi 1999 (3) SCC
259 and; Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works
Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr
(2005) 1 SCC 122. This Court in Zandu
Pharmaceuticals Ltd., observed that:

"The power under Section 482 of
the Code should be used sparingly and with
to prevent abuse of process of Court, but
not to stifle legitimate prosecution. There
can be no two opinions on this, but if it
appears to the trained judicial mind that
continuation of a prosecution would lead to
abuse of process of Court, the power under
Section 482 of the Code must be exercised
and proceedings must be quashed".

14. Also see Om Prakash and Ors.
V. State of Jharkhand 2012 (12) SCC 72.

What emerges from the above
judgments is that when a prosecution at the
initial stage is asked to be quashed, the tests
to be applied by the Court is as to whether
the uncontroverted allegations as made in
the complaint prima facie establish the
case. The Courts have to see whether the
continuation of the complaint amounts to
abuse of process of law and whether
continuation of the criminal proceeding
results in miscarriage of justice or when the
Court comes to a conclusion that quashing
these proceedings would otherwise serve
the ends of justice, then the Court can
exercise the power under Section 482,
Cr.P.C. While exercising the power under
the provision, the Courts have to only look
at the uncontroverted allegation in the
complaint whether prima facie discloses an
offence or not, but it should not convert
itself to that of a trial Court and dwell into
the disputed questions of fact."

15. As per law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above
referred cases, the High Court should be
very careful while exercising power under
section 482 Cr.P.C., however, at the same
time, it should not allow a litigant to file
vexatious complaints to otherwise settle his
or her scores by setting the criminal law
into motion, which is a pure abuse of
process of law and it has to be interdicted at
the threshold.

16. In view of the above legal position
well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
I would like to deal with the facts of the
present case, which lead to file the
impugned FIR against the applicants for the
offences punishable under Sections 363,
366, 354, 506, 342, 120-B I.P.C.

17. Initially, an F.I.R. was lodged by
Mahendra Singh Yadav, father of the
victim, alleging therein that her minor
daughter who was student of Class VIII
was being teased by Nazim, while she used
to go to school. Nazim stays in front of the
house of the informant at Khoda. When the
victim informed about the conduct of
Nazim to the informant, he along with his
relatives went to Nazim's house where he
met his father, brother, sister and brotherin-law and when he told about the conduct
of Nazim to the aforesaid persons, they
started fighting with the informant and
asked him not to come to his house again
and be ready to face dire consequences.
After the aforesaid incident, informant tried
to convince Nazim not to tease his
daughter. Five days prior to lodging of the
F.I.R., victim told the informant that family
members of Nazim along with him were
standing near the building and starring at
her. On 17.12.2013, at about 07:00 p.m.,
when the informant along with his wife and
son, namely, Saurabh had gone to the
3-5 All. Abid & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1705
doctor for medicine, in his absence, Nazim
came and took away his daughter Laxmi @
Kavita and informant's nine year old
daughter Nandini was locked in the house
by Nazim. When the informant reached the
house, Nandini told him about the incident.
The
informant
also
found
that
Rs.5,00,000/-, 800g gold ornaments and
200g silver ornaments missing from his
house. He has further alleged that he is
fully sure that his daughter has been enticed
away by Nazim with the help and
assistance of his family members. For the
aforesaid incident, F.I.R. was lodged under
Sections 363, 366, 354, 506 I.P.C.

18. At this stage, it would be
necessary to refer these aforesaid Sections
363, 366, 354, 506 I.P.C. :

363. Punishment for kidnapping.-
-Whoever
kidnaps
any
person
from
1[India] or from lawful guardianship, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

366. Kidnapping, abducting or
inducing woman to compel her marriage,
etc.--Whoever kidnaps or abducts any
woman with intent that she may be
compelled, or knowing it to be likely that
she will be compelled, to marry any person
against her will, or in order that she may be
forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or
knowing it to be likely that she will be
forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
1[and whoever, by means of criminal
intimidation as defined in this Code or of
abuse of authority or any other method of
compulsion, induces any woman to go from
any place with intent that she may be, or
knowing that it is likely that she will be,
forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with
another person shall be punishable as
aforesaid].

354. Assault or criminal force to
woman with intent to outrage her modesty.-
-Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to
any woman, intending to outrage or
knowing it to be likely that he will thereby
outrage her modesty, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.

506. Punishment for criminal
intimidation.--Whoever
commits,
the
offence of criminal intimidation shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both; If
threat be to cause death or grievous hurt,
etc.--And if the threat be to cause death or
grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of
any property by fire, or to cause an offence
punishable with death or 1[imprisonment
for life], or with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to seven years, or to
impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
seven years, or with fine, or with both.

19. Section 363 is the punishment for
kidnapping from lawful guardianship and
Section
366
deals
with
kidnapping,
abducting and inducing women to compel
her to marry. Whereas, Section 354 is
assault or criminal force to women with
intend to outrage her modesty and Section
504 deals with intentional insult with
intend to provoke breach of peace. In the
present case, after F.I.R. was lodged,
Nazim along with victim approached this
Hon'ble Court by means of filing a writ
petition in which protection was given to
Nazim as well as the victim and the Court
had further directed the victim to get her
1706 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. and also get her medically
examined. Therefore, on the basis of the
aforesaid, it cannot be said that she was
kidnapped
or
abducted
from
lawful
guardianship.

20. The statement of the victim under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. also goes to show that
no criminal force was applied on the victim
to outrage her modesty and she was not
forced by Nazim to marry her. The victim
has also not spoken anything serious
against the family members of Nazim,
therefore no offence under the relevant
Sections is made out.

21. The Court must in each case
consider the evidence before it and the
surroundings
circumstances
before
reaching a conclusion because each
case has its own peculiar facts which
may have a bearing. The undisputed
facts of the case are that the victim was
18 year old as is clear from the medical
certificate. She was a major grown up
girl and had gone willingly with him
that no force was applied to outrage her
modesty nor she was kidnapped and
that she has married Nazim out of her
own sweet will and is living as husband
and wife with him.

22. In the light of the aforesaid
discussion and looking to the facts and
circumstances, this Court is convinced
that applicants are not guilty of the
offence punishable under Sections 363,
366, 354, 506, 342, 120-B I.P.C., hence
the continuance of the impugned F.I.R.
against
the
applicants
and
other
proceedings pursuant thereto will be
nothing but in abuse of the process of
the Court and the same are liable to be
quashed.

23. Resultantly, the entire proceedings
of Case Crime No. 2287 of 2013, under
Sections 363, 366, 354, 506, 342, 120-B
I.P.C. as well as entire proceeding of S.T.
No. 1200 of 2014 "State Vs. Abid and
another" under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C.,
Police
Station-
Indrapuram,
District
Ghaziabad, are an abuse process of law.
The same are hereby quashed.

24. The present application is
accordingly allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1706
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 28450 of 2019

Smt. Radha Devi & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Arun Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Evidence Law- Evidence Act (1 of 1872)
- Sections.40, 41, 42, 43 - Acquittal of coaccused - judgment of acquittal of coaccused
in
a
criminal
trial
is
not
admissible under sections 40 to 43 of the
Evidence Act to bar the subsequent trial of
the absconding co-accused - judgment of
acquittal will be admissible only to show
as to who were the parties in the
proceedings or factum of acquittal
(Para 10)

B. Criminal Law- Criminal Procedure Code
(2 of 1974) - Section 482 - Quashing of