# Aditya Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 222
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1985 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aditya-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51119
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

G.A.,
Maneesh
Kumar
Singh,
Navita
Sharma

Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14A(1) -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Sections 156(3) & 173(2) - Appellant sought
quashing of Sessions Trial No. 369 of 2021,
summoning
order
dated
29.10.2021,
and
charge-sheet No. A-096 of 2021 for offences
under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST Act, alleging false implication influenced
by victim's husband. Court held: (1) Appeal
under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST Act was
maintainable,
as
summoning
orders
and
proceedings
were
challengeable
despite
alternative remedies, to prevent abuse of
process (Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs Special Judicial
Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749). (2) FIR disclosed
cognizable offence, with prima facie material
(victim's St.ments under Sections 161 and 164
Cr.P.C., medical examination) warranting trial;
contradictions (e.g., mobile location, delayed
reporting) were factual issues for trial (M/s.
India Carat Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of Karn., (1989) 2
SCC 132). (3) Appellant's departmental inquiry
exoneration and interim bail did not justify
quashing, as they did not disprove prima facie
case; victim's trauma explained inconsistencies
(Ramveer Upadhyay Vs St. of U.P., 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 484). (4) No material concealment or
abuse of process; allegations of false FIR
required evidentiary adjudication during trial
(Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Aryan Singh,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 379). (5) Summoning
order upheld, as it reflected application of mind
to FIR and charge-sheet; appellant directed to
appear within three weeks, file discharge
application, and trial court to decide within three
months without undue adjournments. Appeal
disposed of; no coercive action till discharge
application disposal. (Paras 24-36)

Appeal Disposed of.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fulfilled, and only then the said land could
have been excluded from the ceiling
operations. Apart from the above, this
Court is of the considered view that there is
no
power
vested
in
the
Prescribed
Authority to exclude the land merely on
demonstration or production of decree
passed
by
the
Court
of
competent
jurisdiction.

20. In the light of above discussion,
this Court does not find any infirmity in the
impugned
appellate
order
dated
18.08.1992, accordingly, the writ petition
being devoid of merit is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 222
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1985 of 2021

Aditya Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Suresh Kumar Upadhyay, Kamal Kishor
Tiwari, Manoj Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.,
Maneesh
Kumar
Singh,
Navita
Sharma

Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14A(1) -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Sections 156(3) & 173(2) - Appellant sought
quashing of Sessions Trial No. 369 of 2021,
summoning
order
dated
29.10.2021,
and
charge-sheet No. A-096 of 2021 for offences
under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST Act, alleging false implication influenced
by victim's husband. Court held: (1) Appeal
under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST Act was
maintainable,
as
summoning
orders
and
proceedings
were
challengeable
despite
alternative remedies, to prevent abuse of
process (Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs Special Judicial
Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749). (2) FIR disclosed
cognizable offence, with prima facie material
(victim's St.ments under Sections 161 and 164
Cr.P.C., medical examination) warranting trial;
contradictions (e.g., mobile location, delayed
reporting) were factual issues for trial (M/s.
India Carat Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of Karn., (1989) 2
SCC 132). (3) Appellant's departmental inquiry
exoneration and interim bail did not justify
quashing, as they did not disprove prima facie
case; victim's trauma explained inconsistencies
(Ramveer Upadhyay Vs St. of U.P., 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 484). (4) No material concealment or
abuse of process; allegations of false FIR
required evidentiary adjudication during trial
(Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Aryan Singh,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 379). (5) Summoning
order upheld, as it reflected application of mind
to FIR and charge-sheet; appellant directed to
appear within three weeks, file discharge
application, and trial court to decide within three
months without undue adjournments. Appeal
disposed of; no coercive action till discharge
application disposal. (Paras 24-36)

Appeal Disposed of.

List of Cases cited:

1.
Pepsi
Foods
Ltd.
Vs
Special
Judicial
Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 (Para 28)

2. M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of Karn.,
(1989) 2 SCC 132 (Para 29)

3. Ramveer Upadhyay Vs St. of U.P., 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 484 (Para 30)

4. Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Aryan
Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 (Para 21)

5. Simranjit Singh Mann Vs U.O.I., AIR 1993 SC
280 (Para 22)

6. R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC
866 (Para 32)
1 All. Aditya Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
223
7. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335 (Para 32)

8. St. of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri)
192 (Para 32)

9. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq, (2005) 1 SCC 122 (Para 32)

10. S.W. Palankattkar Vs St. of Bihar, 2002 (44)
ACC 168 (Para 33)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1.

Heard
Mr.
Suresh
Kumar
Upadhyay, Advocate along with Mr. Manoj
Kumar Mishra, learned Counsels for the
appellant, Mr. Maneesh Kumar Singh,
learned Counsel for opposite party No.2
and Ms. Shikha Sinha, learned A.G.A. for
the State-opposite party No.1.

2. The present Criminal Appeal under
Section 14A(1) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 is being preferred by the
appellant,
namely-Aditya
Kumar
for
quashing the entire criminal proceedings in
Session Trial No.369 of 2021 pending
before learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Shravasti arising out of Case Crime
No.0439 of 2020, under Sections 376 I.P.C.
and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police
Station-Sonwan, District-Shrawasti against
the appellant as well as summoning order
dated 29.10.2021 passed by learned Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Shrawasti and chargesheet No.A-096 of 2021 dated 09.05.2021
against the appellant.

BRIEFS FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The case, in brief, is that the
opposite party No.2/complainant, namely,
Manju lodged a First Information Report
against the appellant at Police Station
Malhipur, District- Shrawasti under Section
376 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(V) S.C. / S.T.
Act registered as Case Crime No.0439 of
2020 in pursuance of direction issued by
the
concerned
Magistrate
upon
the
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
made by opposite party No.2

4. The said F.I.R. was lodged stating
therein that on 02.07.2020 when the victim
was standing at Bus Stand Jamunaha at
10:00 A.M. waiting for Taxi/Bus, the
appellant reached there, who insisted the
victim to sit on his Motorcycle and he
would
drop
her
at
her
destination,
thereafter, the opposite party No.2 sat on
the Motorcycle of the appellant and went
with him. It is further alleged that the
appellant had taken her away to his house
Chichadi Chauraha upon questioning by
victim, the appellant told her that he will
drop her after sometime. It is also alleged
that the appellant shut the door of his house
and snatched the mobile phone of the
victim and committed rape on her,
thereafter, at about 7:00 P.M. in the
evening, she had been released from the
house of the appellant and after reaching
her house, she informed her mother-in-law
about the whole incident and thereafter, she
also informed about the incident to the
Superintendent
of
Police,
District-
Shrawasti on 17.12.2020 through registered
post.

ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant
further submits that as per the contents of
the F.I.R. it has been clearly stated that
opposite party No.2 reported the alleged
incident to the concerned police station on
the next day i.e. on 03.07.2020 but no heed
was paid to her complaint, thereafter, the
victim after a delay of more than five
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
months, sent an application through a
registered post dated 17.12.2020 to the
Superintendent
of
Police,
District-
Shrawasti, stating therein all the facts about
the alleged incident but no action was taken
by the Superintendent of Police, District-
Shrawasti. Being aggrieved by the inaction
on the part of police authorities, the
opposite party No.2 moved an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before
concerned Magistrate and vide order dated
19.12.2020, the Magistrate directed the
Police
Station-
Malhipur,
District-
Shrawasti to register the complaint made
by the opposite party No.2 and proceed for
investigation. The Investigating Officer
visited the place of incident made a site
plan
and
proceeded
for
further
investigation.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the victim in her
statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. has re-titrated the same version of
the F.I.R. but has slightly changed the
version of the F.I.R. and stated that she
went with the appellant with her children
and the appellant locked her children and
committed rape on her.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant
further submitted that after her statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she was sent for
medical examination, where she denied for
her
internal
or
external
medical
examination.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant
further submitted that there are major
contradictions in the statements of the
victim recorded under Section 161 and 164
Cr.P.C. The victim in her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated
that when the appellant allowed her to
leave his house, she came back home on
Motorcycle of son of his uncle but later she
stated that she reached home by walking
alone.

9. Learned Counsel for the appellant
further submitted that as per the statements
of victim, the mobile phone used by the
victim was snatched by the appellant and
was made inoperative, and committed rape
on her, but as per the CDR of the mobile
phone, bearing Mobile No.8005164186
used by the victim on the date of incident
i.e. 02.07.2020, the location and network
connection of the said mobile number was
found in Arriya (Bihar), where the husband
of the victim is posted in Shashtra Seema
Bal (S.S.B.).

10. Learned Counsel for the appellant
further submitted when the victim was
inquired about the contradictory statements
made by her regarding use of mobile
number on the date of incident, she stated
that she was traumatized by the incident
and the mobile number to which she was
referring in her earlier statements i.e.
Mobile No.8005164186 was in possession
of her husband, who was posted in Bihar.
Thus, it appears that victim is making false
statements to prove the prosecution story.

11. It was further submitted that the
appellant being aggrieved by the false
prosecution initiated against him, intimated
this issue to his department and the
department after making an enquiry in the
matter has held that the victim being
influenced by her husband, namely-Jagram,
who was also posted in the same
department i.e. S.S.B. in which the
appellant is posted has lodged a fake F.I.R.
against
the
appellant,
namely-Aditya
Kumar, thus, after going through the
findings, opinion and recommendations,
the departmental committee has held that
1 All. Aditya Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
225
the Jagram, husband of the complainant is
blameworthy for influencing his wife to
lodge fake F.I.R. against the appellant.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that thereafter, the
appellant
approached
this
Court
for
quashing of the F.I.R. by filing a Petition
bearing Misc. Bench No.6179 of 2021
(Aditya Kumar vs. State of U.P. and
Others) wherein, a Coordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 09.03.2021
granted interim protection to the appellant
and directed that unless and until sufficient
and credible evidence against the appellant
for filing a police report under Section
173(2) Cr.P.C. for the offences alleged in
the F.I.R. is found, he shall not be arrested
in Case Crime No.439 of 2020.

13. Learned Counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the Investigating
Officer after completing the investigation
submitted chargesheet dated 09.05.2021
bearing A-096 of 2021 against the
appellant and case was numbered as 439 of
2020 under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section
3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act in a cursory manner
and the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Shrawasti vide order dated 29.10.2021
rejected the application A-3 of the
appellant and summoned him under Section
376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
Act, which are impugned herein.

14. Learned Counsel for the appellant
has submitted that there is no evidence
available
on
record
to
show
any
involvement of the appellant in the alleged
offence. He has further submitted that the
impugned proceedings against the appellant
are nothing but a sheer abuse of process of
law and are manifestly unjust and illegal.
The investigation has also been closed, and
no further investigation is pending in the
offence and the continuation of proceedings
against the appellant would result only in
his further harassment for alleged offences,
which are not made out against him
inasmuch as there is no evidence indicating
his involvement in any manner for
commission of alleged offences.

15. Learned counsel for the applicant
has vehemently submitted that in the facts
and circumstances of the case and after
having satisfied that the ingredients of
Sections 376 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(V)
S.C. / S.T. Act are not made out against the
appellant and the case falls within the
parameters laid down by this Hon'ble Court
in the case of Ch. Bhajan Lal v. State of
Haryana 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 which
are required to be considered while
quashing the criminal proceedings. He
further argued that from the material
available on record it is apparent that the
appellant is not involved in the alleged
offence, thus, he prays that it is a fit case
for quashing of the impugned order dated
29-10-2021 and all the consequential
proceedings of the case so far as the present
appellant is concerned.

ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

16. Per contra, Ms. Shikha Sinha, the
learned Additional Government Advocate
for the State-opposite party No. 1 has
submitted that learned court below has not
committed any error or illegality in issuing
summoning order dated 29-10-2021 against
the appellant and the present appeal is
liable to be dismissed as all the Factial
aspects has been argued.

17. Sri Maneesh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the complainant/
opposite no. 2 raised preliminary objection
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by stating that the present appeal under
Section 14A(1) of Schedule Castes and
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act 1989 is not maintainable and is liable to
be dismissed.

18.

Learned
Counsel
for
the
complainant/ opposite party No. 2 further
stated that there are material concealment of
facts on behalf of the appellant and the
appellant has not came with clean hands
before this Hon'ble Court.

19.

Learned
counsel
for
the
complainant/ opposite party No. 2 further
stated that the present application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicant but the affidavit in support thereof
is made by his attorney which is not
maintainable. Learned Counsel for the opp.
party No. 2 also repudiated the remaining
submissions made by the counsel for the
applicant
and
prays
that
the
present
application filed by the applicant be
dismissed.

20. It was further argued by learned
counsel for the complainant/ opposite party
No. 2 that the appellant has indulged in clever
drafting by twisting material facts. Beside
concealing relevant facts germane to the
matters in issue, even vital material facts and
documents have not been brought on record
with due deliberation.

21.

Learned
counsel
for
the
complainant / opposite party No. 2 has
further placed reliance upon the judgment in
the case of Central Bureau of Investigation
Vs Aryan Singh Etc 2023 SCC OnLine SC
379, and relied on paras-10 and 12, wherein it
has been observed as under:

"10.
From
the
impugned
common judgment and order passed by the
High Court, it appears that the High
Court has dealt with the proceedings
before it, as if, the High Court was
conducting a mini trial and/or the High
Court was considering the applications
against the judgment and order passed by
the learned Trial Court on conclusion of
trial. As per the cardinal principle of law,
at the stage of discharge and/or quashing
of
the
criminal
proceedings,
while
exercising
the
powers
under
Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not
required to conduct the mini trial. The
High Court in the common impugned
judgment and order has observed that the
charges against the accused are not
proved. This is not the stage where the
prosecution/investigating agency is/are
required to prove the charges. The
charges are required to be proved during
the trial on the basis of the evidence led by
the
prosecution/investigating
agency.
Therefore, the High Court has materially
erred in going in detail in the allegations
and the material collected during the
course of the investigation against the
accused, at this stage. At the stage of
discharge and/or while exercising the
powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the
Court has a very limited jurisdiction and
is required to consider "whether any
sufficient material is available to proceed
further against the accused for which the
accused is required to be tried or not".

12. In view of the above and for
the reasons stated above, when the High
Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in
quashing the entire criminal proceedings
and applying the law laid down by this
Court in catena of decisions on exercise of
the powers at the stage of discharge and/or
quashing the criminal proceedings, the
impugned common judgment and order
passed by the High Court quashing the
criminal proceedings against the accused is
1 All. Aditya Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
227
unsustainable and the same deserves to be
quashed and set aside."

22.

Learned
counsel
for
the
complainant / opposite party No. 2 has
further placed reliance upon the judgment
in the case of Simranjit Singh Mann Vs
Union of India: 2 AIR 1993 SC 280, the
Apex Court, held as under:-

"Ordinarily, the aggrieved party
which is affected by any order has the right to
seek redress by questioning the legal validity
or correctness of the order, unless such party
is a minor, an insane person or is suffering
from any other disability which in law
recognized as sufficient to permit any other
person e.g. next friend, to move the Court on
his behalf. It was also held that if a guardian
or a next friend initiates proceedings for and
on behalf of such a disabled aggrieved party,
it is, in effect, proceedings initiated by the
party aggrieved and not by a total stranger,
who has no direct personal stake, in the
outcome thereof. In the above mentioned
case, a leader of a political party approached
the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of
India,
challenging
the
conviction and sentence of the assassins of
Gen. Vaidya. The two convicts were alive but
did not file any appeal against the conviction
and sentence. The Apex Court held that the
petitioner, in that case, had locus standi to
invoke the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the
Constitution."

(9) The plain reading of ratio of
law as laid down in the aforesaid cases,
clearly goes to reveal that it is only the
accused person, against whom a criminal
case has been registered or a criminal
complaint, has been filed, can file a petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High
Court, for quashing the complaint, the
summoning order and/ or the subsequent
proceedings, if any, and no third person
can fight a proxy war on his behalf under
the garb of public interest litigant. The
aggrieved party, which is affected by an
order, is required to seek redress of its
grievance, by questioning the legal validity
or correctness of the same. It is another
thing, if the aggrieved party, is suffering
from some disability, i.e., unless such party
is a minor, or an insane person, or is
suffering from any other disability, which,
in law, is recognized as sufficient to permit
any other person, e.g., next friend, to move
the Court, on his behalf. On behalf of
minor, or insane person, a guardian or a
next friend, initiates proceedings, so as to
challenge the legality and validity of the
order,
passed
against him,
to
seek
redressal of the grievance, as under law,
such a person having disability, cannot be
said to be competent, to file a petition,
except through next friend or guardian. In
the instant case, there is nothing on the
record, that Amit Ahuja, petitioner, is
suffering from any disability, recognized by
the provisions, of law. He is an accused, in
the aforesaid complaint. It is he, who is
aggrieved against the complaint and the
summoning order. It is he, who can
challenge the same, on any ground which
may be available to him, under the
provisions of law. If, in criminal cases,
until and unless a person, is allowed to
fight the proxy war, then the very purpose
of criminal justice system, shall be
defeated. In the event, the Courts, would be
mushroomed, by public interest litigants. In
this view of the matter, the present petition,
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the
petitioner, through his attorney, is not
maintainable. On this ground alone, the
same is liable to be dismissed."

23. The learned counsel for the
complainant/ opposite party No. 2 further
submitted that in spite of issuance of
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bailable
and
non
bailable
warrants
appellant is deliberately and consciously
evading the summons and is circumventing
the process of law. In a catena of decisions
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in
the bud.

OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT

24. I have considered the rival
submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and the judgments referred herein
above and perused the material available on
record and also the prayer made in the
present appeal under Section 14A(1) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

25. The powers of the High Court to
quash criminal proceedings in exercise of
its jurisdiction is well known. The High
Court may not enter into determination of
the disputed questions of fact at the stage of
its exercise of powers however, the Court
may examine and take note of the facts and
allegations in order to find out whether the
impugned proceedings are in abuse of the
process of the court and law and their
continuance would result in miscarriage of
justice or not.

26. In the present case the facts, as
noted above, are not in dispute. The FIR
and the charge-sheet discloses as to how
and in what manner the appellant was
responsible for commission of offence.

27. The question which arises for
consideration in the present case is that
whether the appellant was liable for any
offence even if the allegations in the FIR
and charge-sheet are taken on their face
value to be correct in entirety. The Statute
must contain provision fixing such a
liability. Even for the said purpose, it
would be obligatory on the part of the
complainant and the investigating agency
to make requisite allegations and collect
evidence in support thereof which would
attract provisions constituting liability.

28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special
Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 has
held that summoning of an accused in a
criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal
law cannot be set in motion as the matter of
course for alleged offences and was pleased
to observe in para-28 of the aforesaid
judgment which reads as under:-

"28. Summoning of an accused
in a criminal case is a serious matter.
Criminal law cannot be set into motion as
a matter of course. It is not that the
complainant has to bring only two
witnesses to support his allegations in the
complaint to have the criminal law set into
motion. The order of the Magistrate
summoning the accused must reflect that
he has applied his mind to the facts of the
case and the law applicable thereto. He
has to examine the nature of allegations
made in the complaint and the evidence
both oral and documentary in support
thereof and would that be sufficient for the
complainant to succeed in bringing charge
home to the accused. It is not that the
Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time
of recording of preliminary evidence
before summoning of the accused. The
Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the
evidence brought on record and may even
himself put questions to the complainant
and his witnesses to elicit answers to find
out the truthfulness of the allegations or
otherwise and then examine if any offence
is prima facie committed by all or any of
the accused."
1 All. Aditya Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
229

29. In M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v.
State of Karnataka and another : (1989) 2
SCC 132,
the
Hon'ble
Court,
after
analyzing the provisions of the Code,
referred to the decisions in Abhinandan Jha
v. Dinesh Mishra: AIR 1968 SC 117 and
H.S. Bains v. State (UT of Chandigarh) :
(1980) 4 SCC 631 and, eventually was
pleased to observe as under:

16. "The position is, therefore,
now well settled that upon receipt of a
police report under Section 173(2) a
Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of
an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the
Code even if the police report is to the
effect that no case is made out against the
accused. The Magistrate can take into
account the statements of the witnesses
examined
by
the
police
during
the
investigation and take cognizance of the
offence complained of and order the issue
of
process
to
the
accused.
Section
190(1)(b) does not lay down that a
Magistrate can take cognizance of an
offence only if the investigating officer
gives an opinion that the investigation has
made out a case against the accused. The
Magistrate can ignore the conclusion
arrived at by the investigating officer and
independently apply his mind to the facts
emerging from the investigation and take
cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, in
exercise of his powers under Section
190(1)(b) and direct the issue of process to
the accused."

30. In the recent decision rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ramveer Upadhyay vs State of U.P. 2022
SCC OnlIne SC 484 and placed reliance on
para 39 which read as under:

"39 In our considered opinion
criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in
the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the
complaint has been lodged by a political
rival. It is possible that a false complaint
may have been lodged at the behest of a
political
opponent.
However,
such
possibility would not justify interference
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash
the criminal proceedings. As observed
above, the possibility of retaliation on the
part of the petitioners by the acts alleged,
after closure of the earlier criminal case
cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the
complaint constitute offence under the
Attrocities Act. Whether the allegations are
true or untrue, would have to be decided in
the trial. In exercise of power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does
not examine the correctness of the
allegations in a complaint except in
exceptionally rare cases where it is
patently clear that the allegations are
frivolous or do not disclose any offence.
The Complaint Case No. 19/2018 is not
such a case which should be quashed at the
inception itself without further Trial. The
High
Court
rightly
dismissed
the
application under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C."

31. Thus, this Court is of the view
that all the contentions raised by the
appellant's counsel relate to disputed
questions of fact. The court has also been
called upon to adjudge the testimonial
worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate
the same on the basis of various intricacies
of factual details which have been touched
upon by learned counsel. The veracity and
credibility of material furnished on behalf
of the prosecution has been questioned and
false implication has been pleaded. In the
process
of
invoking
its
inherent
jurisdiction, this court cannot be persuaded
to have a pre trial before the actual trial
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
begins. The submissions made by the
learned counsel call for adjudication on
pure questions of fact which may be
adequately adjudicated upon only by the
trial court and while doing so even the
submissions made on points of law can also
be more appropriately gone into by the trial
court in this case.

32. At this stage of issuing process
the court below is not expected to examine
and assess in detail the material placed on
record, only this has to be seen whether
prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed
or not. The quashing of charge sheet,
summoning order and entire proceedings
can also be done only if it does not disclose
any offence or if there is any legal bar
which prohibits the proceedings on its
basis. The Apex Court has also laid down
the
guidelines
where
the
criminal
proceedings
could
be
interfered
and
quashed in exercise of its power by the
High Court in the following cases and
make the position of law in this regard
clear:-(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of
Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of
Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P.
Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv)
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs.
Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283.

33. The power of High Court is very
wide
but
should be
exercised
very
cautiously to do real and substantial justice
for which the court alone exists. Hence the
chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and
no useful purpose is likely to be served by
allowing
criminal
proceedings
to
be
continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others
Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it
has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
that quashing of the criminal proceedings is
an exception than a rule. The inherent
powers of the High Court itself envisages
three circumstances under which the
inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i)
to give effect an order under the Code; (ii)
to prevent abuse of the process of the
court; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of
justice.

34. In absence of any of the grounds
recognized by the Apex Court which might
justify the quashing of summoning order
dated
29-10-2021
or
consequential
proceedings, the prayer for quashing the
same is refused, as I do not see any abuse
of the courts process either. The court
below has been vested with sufficient
powers to discharge the accused even
before the stage to frame the charges
comes, if for reasons to be recorded it
considers the charge to be groundless.

35. In view of the above discussions
and observations, this appeal filed by the
appellant
under
Section
14A(1)
of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for the
relief claimed stands disposed of.

However, it is directed that the
appellant shall appear before the concerned
court below, within a period of three weeks
from today and move an application
claiming discharge, the concerned court
shall after hearing the counsel for the
parties decide the aforesaid discharge
application,
if
filed,
on
merits
in
accordance with law within a period which
shall not exceed a period of three months
from
today
without
granting
any
unnecessary adjournment to either of the
parties,
unless
there
is
some
legal
impediment or unless there is any order
passed by the higher court staying the
proceedings of the case.
1 All. Ram Lal Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
231

36. It is further directed that till the
disposal
of
the
aforesaid
discharge
application, if filed, within the stipulated
time given by this Court, no coercive action
shall be taken against the appellant.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 231
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RENU AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1142 of 2019

Ram Lal Verma ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Ganesh Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision, Section 200 - Examination of
complainant, Section 202 - Postponement
of issue of process, Section 244 - Evidence
for prosecution, Section 245 - When
accused shall be discharged, Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 419, 420, 504 - once a
case
is
instituted
upon
the
private
complaint, after recording the evidence,
discharge application can be entertained -
police case - only one cross examination ,
private complaint - two cross examinations
- Distinctions between warrant cases
based
on
police
reports
and
private
complaints under Section 200 Cr.P.C. - if
the
accused
produces
any
evidence
material at the stage of framing of charge
which
might
drastically
effect
very
sustainability of the case it infer that no
such material should be considered into by
the court at this stage. (Para - 7,9, 12)

Trial court after hearing parties rejected
discharge application - ground - application
under Section 244 Cr.P.C not recorded -
revisionist appeared in court - revisionist joined
as Branch Manager in U.P. Co-operative Village
Development Bank Limited - relieved - joined
branch at Jalalpur - trial court held - this fact is
to be proved by evidence - rejected the
application - Revisionist's Claim for Discharge -
Revisionist joined Tanda Branch on 29.08.1998 -
relieved for Jalalpur Branch on 18.08.2003 -
Incident occurred during his relievement - not
posted at the branch at the time - Revisionist
moved for discharge citing lack of posting at the
relevant time.(Para -2,6,13)

HELD: -Complainant not lead evidence under
Section 244 (1) Cr.P.C and discharge application
moved at prior stage; hence, case of applicant
covered under Section 245 (1) Cr.P.C. .
Trial
court must determine if the accused revisionist
was posted at the Tanda Branch when the
incident occurred. Court had the liberty to
discharge the applicant under Section 245(1)
even prior to the evidence led under Section
244 Cr.P.C., but if not posted, the revisionist
cannot face the trial. Court should consider the
applicant's objection. (Para - 11,14)

Impugned
order
quashed.

Matter
remitted to court concerned. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Adalat Prasad Vs Roop Lal Jindal & ors., 2005
(JIC) SC

2. Attar Singh Vs St. of U.P. , (2010)(2) DNR
page 558

3. Vijayan Vs St. of Kerals & anr. , (2010) SCC
398

4. U.O.I. Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & anr. , AIR
1979 SC 366

5. Ajay Kumar Gosh Vs St. of Jharkhand & ors. ,
2009 (14) SCC 115

6. Satish Mehra Vs Dehli Administration & ors.,
(1996) 9 SCC 766