# Akash Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 559
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-31
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 5577 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akash-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-50325
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law- The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482- A finding on
the veracity of a material relied on by the
prosecution
in
a
case
where
the
allegations levelled by the prosecution
disclose a cognizable offence, is not a
consideration for the High Court while
exercising its power under Section 482
Cr.P.C- it is clear that the opposite party
no. 2 had approached the Court in order to
wreak vengeance and exert pressure upon
the applicant for earlier enmity which has
been mentioned in the order dated
04.04.2022 and the same could not be
disputed by learned counsel for the
opposite party. Thus, the present case
falls under the Category (7) of Paragraph108 as spelt by the Supreme Court in
Bhajan Lal. (Para 16 & 20)

Petition allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

6 All. Akash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
559

19. The present writ petition is
allowed.
The
impugned
order
dated
3.3.2023 passed by C.J.M., Prayagraj is set
aside.

20. The court is directed to decide the
application moved by the petitioner on
3.3.2023 afresh after giving opportunity of
hearing to the informant as well as other
stakeholders, at the earliest in the light of
observations made hereinabove.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 559
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2023

BEFORE

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

Application u/s 482 No. 5577 of 2023

Akash Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Mata Pher

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri R.S. Dubey, Savita Dubey

Criminal Law- The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482- A finding on
the veracity of a material relied on by the
prosecution
in
a
case
where
the
allegations levelled by the prosecution
disclose a cognizable offence, is not a
consideration for the High Court while
exercising its power under Section 482
Cr.P.C- it is clear that the opposite party
no. 2 had approached the Court in order to
wreak vengeance and exert pressure upon
the applicant for earlier enmity which has
been mentioned in the order dated
04.04.2022 and the same could not be
disputed by learned counsel for the
opposite party. Thus, the present case
falls under the Category (7) of Paragraph108 as spelt by the Supreme Court in
Bhajan Lal. (Para 16 & 20)

Petition allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Haryana & ors. v. Bhajan Lal & ors. AIR
1992 SC 604

2. R.P. Kapur v St. of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866

3. Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Harihar Singh (2008)
16 SCC 763

4. West Bengal St. Electricity Board v. Dilip
Kumar Ray AIR 2007 SC 976

5. Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs St. of
Mah. 2021 SCC OnLine 315 AIR 2021 SC 5711

6. Mahendra K.C. v. St. of Karn. & ors. AIR 2021
SC 5711

7. Shafiya Khan alias Shakuntala Prajapati Vs St.
of Uttar Pradesh & anr.(2022) 4 SCC 549

8. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur & ors. Vs St. of Guj. & anr.(2017) 9 SCC
641

9. Ramveer Upadhyay & anr.Vs St. of U.P. &
anr.2022 SCC OnLine 484

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

1. The applicant has preferred this
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
challenging the proceedings of Session
Case No. 538 of 2022 (Complaint No.
50/2022)1, under Section 354 IPC and
Section 7/8 Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 20122, Police Station
Tarkulawa, District Deoria, as well as
summoning order dated 01.11.2022 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special
Judge, POCSO, Court No. 1, Deoria passed
in the aforesaid case, pending in the Court
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.
1, Deoria.

2. Brief facts of the case are that an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was moved by opposite party no. 2 against
the applicant - Akash Singh S/o Sri Ganesh
Singh, Ritesh Singh S/o Arvind Singh,
Balmiki S/o Pawhari and Krishna Singh
cousin of Akash on 10.02.2022 with the
allegation that all the aforesaid persons
teased 15 year old daughter of opposite
party no. 2, who is student Class-VIII while
she went and returned from School. They
pass unparliamentary remarks, try to
intercept her and click photographs of her
by their mobiles. It has further been alleged
that on 13.01.2022 at about 06:00 a.m.
when the daughter of opposite party no. 2
was sleeping in verandah, Akash Singh
entered the house and started doing
objectionable acts with her. He also tried to
outrage her modesty. On hearing the
screams of the victim, the opposite party
no. 2 Mohan Sharma along with his wife
Urmila Devi ran to the place, on seeing
them approaching, Akash while using
abusive language ran away from there. He
also threatened and blackmailed the victim
of making photographs and video of her
viral. It has also been alleged that the
victim was in a state of shock. The
aforesaid application has been treated as a
complaint case by order dated 04.04.2022
and after recording statements under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicant
has been summoned.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the present case has been
instituted maliciously with an ulterior
motive of wrecking vengeance due to
earlier dispute between the parties. Laying
emphasis on an order dated 04.04.2022 by
which an application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. has been treated as complaint case,
he submits that a police report was called
from the police station, according to which
house of the applicant is in the vicinity of
opposite party no. 2. The nephew of
opposite party no. 2, namely, Rishi Sharma
had enticed away daughter of Ganesh
Singh (sister of the applicant). When she
returned back, a compromise was entered
between the parties on 07.03.2021. The
opposite party no. 2 was also a witness to
the aforesaid compromise. On 10.06.2021,
an incident took place wherein there was a
fight between the family of opposite party
no. 2 and the applicant, for which an
information was given by Palkiya Sharma
(relating to family of opposite party no. 2),
for which a first information report was
lodged on 29.01.2022 which was registered
as Case Crime No. 36 of 2022, under
Sections 147, 148, 323, 308, 427, 452, 504,
506 IPC. The investigation regarding the
aforesaid incident was being done by the
police personnel. Ganesh Singh (father of
of the applicant) had lodged an NCR No.
51 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 506
IPC against the opposite party no. 2 and
four others. It has also been stated in the
police report that both parties have moved
applications for lodging cases against each
other after exaggerating the incident, if any.
Regarding the incident dated 31.01.2022 it
has been stated in the police report that
prima facie no such incident had happened
and no case for the aforesaid incident has
also been lodged.

4. The records of Case Crime No. 36
of 2022 as well as NCR No. 51 of 2021
were before the court concerned who had
passed the order dated 04.04.2022. The
discussion of the NCR also finds place in
the aforesaid order, wherein NCR No. 51 of
2021 was lodged by father of the applicant
against Mohan Sharma and his wife, due to
6 All. Akash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
561
old enmity regarding the incident dated
21.10.2021 in which a fight took place and
abusive language was used and the family
members and father of the applicant were
beaten. For the present incident of
31.01.2022 which happened at 06:00 a.m.,
as alleged, an application has been moved
by opposite party no. 2 under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., however, nothing regarding
earlier incident or cases lodged against
each other has been mentioned. The
concerned court has also observed that the
application has been moved by opposite
party no. 2 concealing the aforesaid facts,
hence has not approached the concerned
court with clean hands.

5. The record relating to earlier
incident, compromise and police report has
also not been filed along with aforesaid
application filed by opposite party no. 2.
Exaggerated version of the incident dated
31.01.2022 has been placed. Finding the
matter to be non-cognizable, the order
dated 04.04.2022 was passed. The Court
has passed the order dated 04.04.2022
treating the said as complaint case.

6. Laying emphasis on the order dated
04.04.2022, vide which application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been treated as
complaint case, learned counsel for the
applicant submits that variations regarding
earlier enmity as in the statement under
Section 200 Cr.P.C., opposite party no. 2
has stated that there is no enmity between
the parties whereas details of earlier
incident, compromise between the two for
the same, the NCR and other cases have
been mentioned. Thus, the aforesaid case
goes to show that the present case has been
lodged with malafide intention. He further
submits that the Court while passing the
aforesaid order has also observed that facts
regarding
the
real
story
have
been
concealed and the opposite party no.2 has
not approached the Court with clean hands
thereby showing the conduct of the
aforesaid opposite party no.2 who has
lodged the present case for the purposes of
harassment
and
in
order
to
wreak
vengeance for the incident, wherein sister
of the applicant was enticed away by
nephew of opposite party no. 2, hence to
exert pressure and as a counterblast, present
case has been lodged along with few other
cases as detailed in the order dated
04.04.2022.

7. From the statements of the victim
recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it is
clear that though allegations regarding
making of video and taking photographs is
there, but she herself has not seen any such
photographs and video speaks volumes
about the intention of the opposite party no.
2 who has initiated malicious proceedings
by moving an application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. concealing earlier enmity,
hence,
opposite
party
no.2
has not
approached the concerned court with clean
hands
as
observed
by
order
dated
04.04.2022. She has also denied any fight
between her family and family of opposite
party no. 2 which also show the variation
from the real situation.

8. The applicant has been summoned
while noticing the fact that the present case
is a case of false and malicious prosecution,
therefore, relying upon the judgements of
the Supreme Court in the cases of State of
Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and
others3; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab4
and, Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Harihar
Singh5, learned counsel for the applicant
submits that proceedings may be quashed
as the same have been initiated with
malafide intention to exert pressure upon
the applicant and wreak vengeance.
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2, on the other hand, submits that
from the version of the application moved
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which has
been treated as a complaint case, same
being supported by the statements recorded
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., prima
facie offence is made out, therefore, no
interference is required by the Court to
grant any relief as prayed.

10. I have heard Sri Mata Pher Tiwari,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit
Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the
State, and Sri R.S. Dubey and Smt. Savita
Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party
no. 2.

11. Before proceeding on the merits
of the case, it would be appropriate to
understand the meaning of malicious
prosecution as defined by the Supreme
Court in the case of West Bengal State
Electricity Board v. Dilip Kumar Ray6.
Relevant part of the said judgement reads
thus:

"14. ... ... ...

MALICIOUS. Done with malice or an
evil design; wilful; indulging in malice,
harboring ill-will, or enmity malevolent,
malignant in heart; committed wantonly,
wilfully, or without cause, or done not only
wilfully and intentionally, but out of
cruelty, hostility of revenge; done in wilful
neglect of a known obligation.

"MALICIOUS" means with a fixed
hate, or done with evil intention or motive;
not the result of sudden passion.

*** *** ***

Malicious abuse of legal process. A
malicious abuse of legal process consists in
the malicious misuse or misapplication of
process to accomplish a purpose not
warranted or commanded by order of Court
- the malicious perversion of a regularly
issued process, whereby an improper result
is secured.

*** *** ***

Malicious
Prosecution
-
Malice.
Malice means an improper or indirect
motive other than a desire to vindicate
public justice or a private right. It need not
necessarily be a feeling of enmity, spite or
ill-will. It may be due to a desire to obtain a
collateral advantage. The principles to be
borne in mind in the case of actions for
malicious prosecutions are these: Malice is
not merely the doing a wrongful act
intentionally but it must be established that
the defendant was actuated by mains
animus, that is to say, by spite of ill- will or
any indirect or improper motive. But if the
defendant hod reasonable or probable cause
of launching the criminal prosecution no
amount of malice will make him liable for
damages. Reasonable and probable cause
must be such as would operate on the mind
of a discreet and reasonable man; 'malice'
and 'want of reasonable and probable cause'
have reference to the state of the
defendant's mind at the date of the initiation
of criminal proceedings and the onus rests
on the plaintiff to prove them.

OTHER
DEFINITIONS
OF
"MALICIOUS PROSECUTION".

"A judicial proceeding instituted by
one person against another, from wrongful
or improper motive and without probable
cause to sustain it."

"A prosecution begun in malice,
without probable cause to believe that it
can succeed and which finally ends in
failure."

"A prosecution instituted wilfully and
purposely, to gain some advantage to the
prosecutor or thorough mere wantonness or
carelessness, if it be at the same time wrong
and unlawful within the knowledge of the
actor, and without probable cause."
6 All. Akash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
563

"A prosecution on some charge of
crime which is wilful, wanton, or reckless,
or against the prosecutor's sense of duty
and right, or for ends he knows or is bound
to know are wrong and against the dictates
of public policy."

The term "malicious prosecution"
imports a causeless as well as an illintended prosecution.

'MALICIOUS PROSECUTION" is a
prosecution on some charge of crime which
is wilful, wanton, or reckless, or against the
prosecutor's sense of duty and right, or for
ends he knows or its bound to know are
wrong and against the dictates of public
policy.

In malicious prosecution there are two
essential
elements,
namely,
that
no
probable cause existed for instituting the
prosecution or suit complained of, and that
such prosecution or suit terminated in some
way favorably to the defendant therein.

1. The institution of a criminal or civil
proceeding for an improper purpose and
without probable cause. 2. The cause of
action resulting from the institution of such
a proceeding. Once a wrongful prosecution
has ended in the defendant's favor, lie or
she may sue for tort damages - Also termed
(in the context of civil proceedings)
malicious use of process. (Black, 7th Edn.,
1999)

*** *** ***

12. In the facts of the present case
wherein observation in this regard has been
made by the concerned court while passing
order dated 04.04.2022 that the opposite
party no. 2 has not disclosed about earlier
enmity between the parties and hence has
not approached the Court with clean hands,
itself goes to show that the proceedings
have been initiated with malicious intention
in order to harass the applicant. A detail
discussion of the earlier proceedings
between the parties and the variations in the
statements
has
been
recorded
under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., as discussed
above, the submissions of learned counsel
for the applicant, also goes to prove that the
proceedings have been instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused with a view to spite him due to
personal grudge for an earlier incident,
wherein the nephew of opposite party no. 2,
namely, Rishi Sharma had enticed away
daughter of Ganesh Singh and though the
parties had entered into compromise but
cases were lodged by both parties against
each other in order to harass the applicant.
The discussion of the police reports in the
order dated 04.04.2022 also speaks about
exaggeration of the incident while moving
applications against each other.

13. It is no more res integra that power
under Section 482 CrPC to quash a
criminal proceeding is exercised only when
an allegation made in the FIR or the charge
sheet constitutes the ingredients of the
offence(s) alleged. Interference by the High
Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent
the abuse of process of any law or Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is
settled law that the evidence produced by
the accused in his defence cannot be looked
into by the Court, except in very
exceptional circumstances, at the initial
stage of the criminal proceedings. It is clear
from the law laid down by the Apex Court
that if a prima facie case is made out
disclosing the ingredients of the offence
alleged against the accused, the Court
cannot quash a criminal proceeding.

14. The Apex Court in Bhajan Lal
(supra) has enumerated seven categories of
the cases where power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. can be exercised by this Court,
which are quoted below:-
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"108.
In
the
backdrop
of
the
interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by
this Court in a series of decisions relating
to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we
have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly defined and sufficiently channelised
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should
be exercised.

(1) 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.

(2) Where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the F.I.R 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.

(3)
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.

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (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 concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide 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."

15. The principles laid down by the
Apex Court in the aforesaid case, have
consistently been followed in the recent
judgement of Three-Judge Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of Neeharika
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. State of
Maharashtra7, wherein it has been held
that there is no denial of the fact that power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but
as observed by this Court in catena of
decisions, conferment of wide power
requires the court to be more cautious and
it casts an onerous and more diligent duty
on the court. Therefore, in exceptional
cases, when the High Court deems it fit, it
may pass appropriate interim orders, as
thought apposite in law, however, the High
Court has to give brief reasons which will
reflect the application of mind by the court
to the relevant facts.
6 All. Akash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
565

16. It is trite law that the power of
quashing criminal proceedings should be
exercised with circumspection and that too,
in the rarest of rare cases and it was not
justified for this Court in embarking upon
an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the Final Report or the Complaint.
A finding on the veracity of a material
relied on by the prosecution in a case where
the allegations levelled by the prosecution
disclose a cognizable offence, is not a
consideration for the High Court while
exercising its power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. This view is fortified by the
decision of the Apex Court in Mahendra
K.C. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.8

17. Recently, the Apex Court in the
case of Shafiya Khan alias Shakuntala
Prajapati vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another9, has observed as under;-

"16. It is no doubt true that the power of
quashing of criminal proceedings should be
exercised
very
sparingly
and
with
circumspection and that too in rarest of the
rare cases and it was not justified for the
Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint
and that the inherent powers do not confer
any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims and fancies."

18. The Apex Court in the case of
Parbatbhai
Aahir
alias
Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State
of Gujarat and another10, referring to
various cases has summarized following
principles to govern powers of High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:

"16. The broad principles which
emerge from the precedents on the subject,
may be summarised in the following
propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent
powers of the High Court to prevent an
abuse of the process of any court or to
secure the ends of justice. The provision
does not confer new powers. It only
recognises and preserves powers which
inhere in the High Court.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction
of the High Court to quash a first
information report or a criminal proceeding
on the ground that a settlement has been
arrived at between the offender and the
victim is not the same as the invocation of
jurisdiction
for
the
purpose
of
compounding
an
offence.
While
compounding an offence, the power of the
court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under
Section 482 is attracted even if the offence
is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a
criminal proceeding or complaint should be
quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482, the High Court must evaluate
whether the ends of justice would justify
the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the
High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude
it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends
of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether a
complaint or first information report should
be quashed on the ground that the offender
and victim have settled the dispute,
revolves ultimately on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no
exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power
under Section 482 and while dealing with a
plea that the dispute has been settled, the
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous
and serious offences involving mental
depravity or offences such as murder, rape
and
dacoity
cannot
appropriately
be
quashed though the victim or the family of
the victim have settled the dispute. Such
offences are, truly speaking, not private in
nature but have a serious impact upon
society. The decision to continue with the
trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7. As distinguished from serious
offences, there may be criminal cases
which
have
an
overwhelming
or
predominant element of a civil dispute.
They stand on a distinct footing insofar as
the exercise of the inherent power to quash
is concerned;

16.8.
Criminal
cases
involving
offences which arise from commercial,
financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil
flavour may in appropriate situations fall
for quashing where parties have settled the
dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court
may quash the criminal proceeding if in
view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is
remote and the continuation of a criminal
proceeding would cause oppression and
prejudice; and

16.10. There is yet an exception to the
principle set out in propositions 16.8. and
16.9. above. Economic offences involving
the financial and economic well-being of
the state have implications which lie
beyond the domain of a mere dispute
between private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash
where the offender is involved in an
activity akin to a financial or economic
fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences
of the act complained of upon the financial
or economic system will weigh in the
balance."

19. In another judgment, the Apex
Court in the case of Ramveer Upadhyay
and Another Vs. State of U.P. and
Another11, has held 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."

20. From the above discussion, it is
clear that the opposite party no. 2 had
approached the Court in order to wreak
vengeance and exert pressure upon the
applicant for earlier enmity which has been
6 All. Nisar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
567
mentioned in the order dated 04.04.2022
and the same could not be disputed by
learned counsel for the opposite party.
Thus, the present case falls under the
Category (7) of Paragraph-108 as spelt by
the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra).

21. In view of the above, proceedings
of Session Case No. 538 of 2022 (Complaint
No. 50/2022)12, under Section 354 IPC and
Section 7/8 Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 201213, Police Station
Tarkulawa, District Deoria, as well as
summoning order dated 01.11.2022 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special
Judge, POCSO, Court No. 1, Deoria passed
in the aforesaid case, pending in the Court of
Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1,
Deoria, are quashed.

22. The application stands allowed.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 567
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 12266 of 2023

Nisar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ram Pravesh Yadav, Sri Shashank Kumar

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 34, , 120-B, 212, 302 &
171)(e) - UP Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1986
-
Sections 2, 3 & 14(1), : - Application U/s 482
- challenging the proceedings, as well as the
charge-sheet & cognizance order - FIR -
lodged against applicant & 10 other accused
persons under Gangsters Act - accused
persons are involved in various criminal
activities - gang chart - investigation - chargesheet was filed against Applicant & 5 other
accused persons - It is argued that, in a case
of
'Mohd.
Ruksar'
filed
by
co-accused
challenging the said proceedings, chargesheet & cognizance order, this Court granted
an interim protection - further, Co-ordinate
Benches of this Court have quashed the
proceedings with regards to the said accused
persons in cases in which they were involved
in a solitary case - and the proceedings which
have been initiated on the basis of a solitary
case are not maintainable - the order of Coordinate Bench in the case relied upon by the
applicant for praying of an interim order on
the said ground does not consider - held, the
judgment & orders relied upon are an interim
order which is not binding on this Court - and
an accused can be proceeded against under
the Gangsters Act even based on a Solitary
case - accordingly, present Application is
dismissed.
(Para - 7, 10)

Application u/s 482 Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mohd. Ruksar Vs St. of U.P. & anr., Application
U/S 482 No. 43408 of 2022

2. Nisar Ahmad Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 37600 of 2017, order dated
12.10.2017

3. Ritesh Kumar @ Ricky Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3938 of 2021,
decided on 05.08.2021

4. Shraddha Gupta Vs The St. of U.P. & ors.:
2022 SCC OnLine SC 514

5. Salim Vs St. of U.P. in Application U/S 482 No.
11646 of 2007 decided on 13.08.2019

6. Tej Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr. in
Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 3239 of
2005 decided on 24.04.2019