# Arun Kumar Singh @ Munna & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 22
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-21
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 5520 of 2023
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arun-kumar-singh-munna-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50595
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
482
-
Inherent power - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 &
471 - The Code of criminal procedure,
1973 - Section 195 - Prosecution for
contempt of lawful authority of public
servants, for offences against public
justice and for offences relating to
documents given in evidence - power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should
be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest
of rare cases - court will not be justified
in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise
of the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint - extraordinary or inherent
powers do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the court to act according
to its whim or caprice. (Para -40 )

F.I.R. lodged by Sub-Divisional Magistrate -
against two officials of the revenue department
- and unnamed beneficiaries of the offence - in
compliance of an order passed by this Court -
allegation - without any proceedings having
been initiated and conducted in the Court -
applicants fabricated a fake order purportedly
passed by the Court - Final report submitted
after investigation - victim filed a protest
petition - trial court rejected Final report. (Para
- 3,21,32)

HELD: Victim had the right to file a protest
petition against the Final Report, and the trial
court did not make any errors in entertaining
the petition and rejecting the Final Report.
F.I.R. was filed after S.D.M. discovered that
the paper book of Case No. 301 was
prepared through forgery and fabrication.
Applicants are the beneficiaries of the
commission of forgery and fabrication of the
Court's records, which constitutes an offense
and
is
not a civil
dispute,
thus the
proceedings cannot be quashed on this
ground. No merit in the application. (Para -
30,38,41)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court within a period of three months from
the date of issuance of the Recovery
Certificate.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 22
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 5520 of 2023

Arun Kumar Singh @ Munna & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Meenakshi Singh Parihar, Abhiuday Pratap
Singh, Chetna Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
482
-
Inherent power - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 &
471 - The Code of criminal procedure,
1973 - Section 195 - Prosecution for
contempt of lawful authority of public
servants, for offences against public
justice and for offences relating to
documents given in evidence - power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should
be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest
of rare cases - court will not be justified
in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise
of the allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint - extraordinary or inherent
powers do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the court to act according
to its whim or caprice. (Para -40 )

F.I.R. lodged by Sub-Divisional Magistrate -
against two officials of the revenue department
- and unnamed beneficiaries of the offence - in
compliance of an order passed by this Court -
allegation - without any proceedings having
been initiated and conducted in the Court -
applicants fabricated a fake order purportedly
passed by the Court - Final report submitted
after investigation - victim filed a protest
petition - trial court rejected Final report. (Para
- 3,21,32)

HELD: Victim had the right to file a protest
petition against the Final Report, and the trial
court did not make any errors in entertaining
the petition and rejecting the Final Report.
F.I.R. was filed after S.D.M. discovered that
the paper book of Case No. 301 was
prepared through forgery and fabrication.
Applicants are the beneficiaries of the
commission of forgery and fabrication of the
Court's records, which constitutes an offense
and
is
not a civil
dispute,
thus the
proceedings cannot be quashed on this
ground. No merit in the application. (Para -
30,38,41)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. St. of Karn. Vs Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185

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

3. Sheila Sebastian Vs R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7
SCC 581,

4. Mir Naqvi Askari Vs C.B.I., (2009) 15 SCC 643

5. Mohd. Ibrahim Vs St. of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC
751

6. Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs Meenakshi Marwah,
(2005) 4 SCC 370

7. Bhagwant Singh Vs Commr. of Police, (1985)
2 SCC 537.

8. Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs Meenakshi Marwah,
(2005) 4 SCC 370

9. Bhagwant Singh Vs Commr. of Police, (1985)
2 SCC 537
8 All. Arun Kumar Singh @ Munna & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
23
10. Sudha Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC
781

11. Jagjeet Singh Vs Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9
SCC 321

12. St. of Karn. Vs Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC
185

13. Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs St. of Karn., 2021
SCC OnLine SC 976

14. Randheer Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2021) 14
SCC 626

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

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned
Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Meenakshi
Singh Parihar, for the applicant, Sri Manish
Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A.-1 and Sri
Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for
the opposite party no. 3.

2. By means of the instant application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
applicant have challenged validity of the
order dated 12.05.2023 passed by the
learned Special Judge (M.P., M.L.A.) /
Additional Session Judge, Court No. 5,
Pratapgarh in Criminal Revision No. 129 of
2022 and the cognizance and summoning
order dated 18.08.2022 and the entire
proceedings of Case No. 129 of 2015 in the
Court of Special Judge M.P. M.L.A. / Civil
Judge (S.D.) / F.T.C. II, Pratapgarh, which
arose out of F.I.R. No. 61 of 2015 lodged
by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kunda,
Pratapgarh on 21.03.2015 in Police Station
Kunda, District Pratapgarh, against two
officials of the revenue department - an
Ahalmad and a Registrar Kanoongo, and
unnamed beneficiaries of the offence, in
compliance of an order dated 15.09.2014
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.
7611 of 2014 - Kamlesh Singh versus State
of U. P. and others.

3. F.I.R. No. 61 of 2015 was lodged
by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kunda,
Pratapgarh on 21.03.2015 under Sections
419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. against two
officials of the revenue department - an
Ahalmad and a Registrar Kanoongo, and
unnamed beneficiaries of the offence, in
compliance of an order dated 15.09.2014
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.
7611 of 2014 - Kamesh Singh versus State
of U. P. and others. The F.I.R. states that a
forged paper-book of Case no. 301 of 2000
in the Court of the S.D.M. Kunda and an
order dated 15.05.2001 were prepared and
mutation was carried out in furtherance of
the aforesaid order in the Khatauni on
08.05.2012. When irregularities committed
in the aforesaid proceedings came to light,
the District Magistrate got an enquiry
conducted by the S.D.M., who submitted
an enquiry report dated 06.02.2015 against
the two named accused officials and the
beneficiaries of the offence.

4.

The
enquiry
report
dated
06.02.2015 submitted by the S.D.M. Sadar,
Pratapgarh stated that paper book of Case
No. 301 under Section 229 B of the
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, titled "Arun Kumar Singh alias Munna
and others versus Kamlesh Kumar Singh",
decided on 15.05.2001, was prepared by
committing forgery and fabrication, as in
the case institution register, case title
"Samai versus Gram Sabha, Gram Malava
Chhajaipur" is recorded against Case No.
301 under Section 229 B of the Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The
entire order-sheet of the paper-book is in
one hand-writing and it mentions that the
submissions of both the parties were heard,
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whereas the defendant Kamlesh Kumar
Singh had not put in appearance in the case.
Moreover, Arun Kumar Singh filed a caveat
in
the
Court
of
the
Divisional
Commissioner 11 years after passing of the
order, which also establishes that the paperbook has been fabricated.

5. Initially the Investigating Officer
submitted a Final Report dated 27.03.2016
stating that previously the investigation was
carried out by Sub-Inspectors Sir. Kedar
Singh and Sri. Ghanshyam Nishad and after
their transfer, the investigation was handed
over to Senior Sub-Inspector Kripa Shankar
Rai. The then S.D.M. had died and for this
reason, no concrete evidence could be
collected on the basis whereof any person
can be charged of commission of any
offence.

6. The opposite party no. 3 Kamlesh
Kumar Singh filed objections against the
Final Report stating that his valuable land
had been grabbed by the accused persons
under a criminal conspiracy. The previous
Investigating
Officer
had
recorded
statements of several witnesses from which
commission of the offences is clearly
established
but
the
subsequent
Investigating Officer has submitted the
Final Report without looking into the
material available on the Case Diary, after
taking undue advantage from the accused
persons.

7. By means of an order dated
01.07.2017, the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kunda, Pratapgarh rejected the
Final Report and took cognizance of
commission of offences under Sections
120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and
474 I.P.C. by the accused persons Arun
Kumar Singh alias Munna, Kiran Kumar
Singh, Satish Kumar Singh, Dinesh Kumar
Singh, Satish Kumar Tripathi, Ramakant
Dwivedi and Pratap Bahadur Singh.

8. The applicants challenged the
aforesaid order dated 01.07.2017 by filing
Criminal Revision No. 171/2017 which
was allowed by means of an order dated
02.06.2018 passed by the Additional
Session Judge, Pratapgarh on the ground
that the trial Court had not discussed the
prima facie evidence before summoning the
accused
persons.
The
order
dated
01.07.2017 was set aside by the Revisional
Court and the matter was remanded for
being decided afresh.

9. After remand, the trial court passed
an order dated 18.08.2022, again rejecting
the objections filed by the applicants
against the charge sheet. The trial Court
took cognizance of the offences against the
applicants and one Satish Kumar Tripathi
and summoned them to face the trial.

10. The applicants challenged the
order dated 18.08.2022 by filing Criminal
Revision No. 129 of 2022, which has been
rejected by the learned Special Judge
M.P./M.L.A. / Additional Session, Judge
Court No. 5, Pratapgarh.

11. The main ground of revision was
that the F.I.R. was lodged by a SubDivisional Magistrate and he did not file
any objection against the Final Report. The
person who had filed the objections was not
the informant and he had no locus standi to
file objection against the Final Report.

12. The revisional was dismissed by
means of a judgment dated 12.05.2023
holding that the F.I.R. was lodged in
furtherance of the order dated 15.09.2014
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.
7611 of 2014, which had been filed by
8 All. Arun Kumar Singh @ Munna & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
25
Kamlesh Kumar Singh. The revisionists
have themselves stated in paragraph 8 of
the memo of Revision that a sale deed of
the land in dispute had been executed in
favour of Kamlesh Kumar Singh. In his
enquiry report, the Sub-District Magistrate
has recorded that paper book of Case No.
301 under Section 229 B of the Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, titled
"Arun Kumar Singh alias Munna and
others versus Kamlesh Kumar Singh",
decided on 15.05.2001, was prepared by
forgery and fabrication, as in the case
institution register, case title "Samai versus
Gram Sabha, Gram Malava Chhajaipur" is
registered against Case No. 301 under
Section 229 B of the Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act. The order-sheet
mentions that the submissions of both the
parties were heard, whereas the defendant
Kamlesh Kumar Singh had not put in
appearance in the case. Therefore Kamlesh
Kumar Singh is not a stranger to the
dispute.

13. The learned revisional Court
further held that the statement of the
Enquiry Officer Sri. J. P. Mishra was
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The
Final Report was filed on the ground that
the then S.D.M. had died. The revisional
Court held that investigation could not be
nullified on this ground as the informant
was a Government Officer and his
signatures can easily be proved even after
his death.

14. Assailing the aforesaid cognizance
and summoning order dated 18.05.2022
and the revisional order dated 12.05.2023,
Sri. H. G. S. Parihar Senior Advocate, the
learned Counsel for the applicants has
submitted that Section 195 Cr.P.C. provides
that no Court shall take cognizance of any
offence described in Section 463 or
punishable under Section 471, Section 475
or Section 476 of the said Code, when such
offence is alleged to have been committed
in respect of a document produced or given
in evidence in a proceeding in any Court,
except on the complaint in writing of that
Court or by such officer of the Court as that
Court may authorise in writing in this
behalf, or of some other Court to which that
Court is subordinate. He has submitted that
although the F.I.R. giving rise to the present
case was lodged by the S.D.M., the
informant S.D.M. did not challenge the
final report. The objections filed by the
opposite party no. 3 Kamlesh Kumar Singh
are in the nature of a complaint and the
same are barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C. In
support of this submission, Sri. Parihar has
relied upon the decisions of State of
Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC
185 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

15. The second submission of the
learned Counsel for the applicants is that
there is no allegation that any of the
applicants had committed forgery and,
therefore, the offences under Sections 415,
420, 463, 464, 468 and 471 I.P.C. are not
made out against the applicants. He has
relied upon the judgments in the cases of
Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018)
7 SCC 581, Mir Naqvi Askari v. CBI,
(2009) 15 SCC 643 and Mohd. Ibrahim v.
State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751.

16. The third submission advanced by
the learned Counsel for the applicants is
that the dispute is purely of civil nature and
the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the
offence in a mechanical manner without
there being sufficient material, only on the
protest application filed by a private
person.
He
has
submitted
that
the
cognizance
and
summoning
of
the
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicants amounts to an abuse of the
process of law.

17. While replying to the aforesaid
submissions, Sri. Rajendra Pratap Singh,
the learned Counsel for the opposite party
no. 3 - Kamlesh Kumar Singh, has
submitted that the opposite party no. 3 is
the victim of the offence committed and the
F.I.R. was lodged in furtherance of a Writ
Petition filed by the opposite party no. 3
and, therefore, the opposite party no. 3 is
not a stranger to the proceedings and he has
the right to challenge the Final Report. He
has placed judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Iqbal Singh
Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4
SCC
370
and
Bhagwant
Singh v.
Commissioner of Police, (1985) 2 SCC
537.

18. Having recorded the submissions
made by the learned Counsel for the
parties, I proceed to discuss the points
involved in the matter.

19. The relevant part of Section 195
Cr.P.C., which puts a bar against the Courts
taking cognizance of certain offences in
certain conditions, is being reproduced
below: -

"195. Prosecution for contempt
of lawful authority of public servants, for
offences against public justice and for
offences relating to documents given in
evidence.-(1)
No
Court
shall
take
cognizance-

(a)...;

(b) (i) ...,

(ii) of any offence described in
Section 463, or punishable under Section
471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said
Code, when such offence is alleged to have
been committed in respect of a document
produced or given in evidence in a
proceeding in any Court, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to
commit, or attempt to commit, or the
abetment of, any offence specified in subclause (i) or sub-clause (ii),

except on the complaint in
writing of that Court or by such officer of
the Court as that Court may authorise in
writing in this behalf, or of some other
Court to which that Court is subordinate.
* * *

(3) In clause (b) of sub-section
(1), the term "Court" means a Civil,
Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a
tribunal constituted by or under a Central,
Provincial or State Act, if declared by that
Act to be a Court for the purposes of this
section."

20. In Iqbal Singh Marwah v.
Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

10. ... The offences mentioned in
this clause clearly relate to giving or
fabricating false evidence or making a false
declaration in any judicial proceeding or
before a court of justice or before a public
servant who is bound or authorised by law
to receive such declaration, and also to
some other offences which have a direct
correlation with the proceedings in a court
of justice (Sections 205 and 211 IPC). This
being the scheme of two provisions or
clauses of Section 195 viz. that the offence
should be such which has direct bearing
or affects the functioning or discharge of
lawful duties of a public servant or has a
direct correlation with the proceedings in
a court of justice, the expression "when
such offence is alleged to have been
committed in respect of a document
produced or given in evidence in a
proceeding in any court" occurring in
8 All. Arun Kumar Singh @ Munna & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
27
clause (b)(ii) should normally mean
commission of such an offence after the
document has actually been produced or
given in evidence in the court. The
situation or contingency where an offence
as enumerated in this clause has already
been committed earlier and later on the
document is produced or is given in
evidence in court, does not appear to be in
tune with clauses (a)(i) and (b)(i) and
consequently with the scheme of Section
195 Cr.P.C.. This indicates that clause
(b)(ii) contemplates a situation where the
offences
enumerated
therein
are
committed with respect to a document
subsequent to its production or giving in
evidence in a proceeding in any court.

11. Section 195(1) mandates a
complaint in writing to the court for taking
cognizance of the offences enumerated in
clauses (b)(i) and (b)(ii) thereof. Sections
340 and 341 Cr.P.C. which occur in
Chapter XXVI give the procedure for filing
of the complaint and other matters
connected therewith. The heading of this
Chapter is - "Provisions as to Offences
Affecting the Administration of Justice".
Though, as a general rule, the language
employed in a heading cannot be used to
give a different effect to clear words of the
section where there cannot be any doubt as
to their ordinary meaning, but they are not
to be treated as if they were marginal notes
or were introduced into the Act merely for
the purpose of classifying the enactments.
They constitute an important part of the Act
itself, and may be read not only as
explaining the sections which immediately
follow them, as a preamble to a statute may
be looked to explain its enactments, but as
affording a better key to the constructions
of the sections which follow them than
might be afforded by a mere preamble. (See
Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edn., pp. 207,
209.) The fact that the procedure for filing
a complaint by court has been provided in
Chapter XXVI dealing with offences
affecting administration of justice, is a
clear pointer to the legislative intent that
the offence committed should be of such
type
which
directly
affects
the
administration of justice viz. which is
committed after the document is produced
or given in evidence in court. Any offence
committed with respect to a document at a
time prior to its production or giving in
evidence in court cannot, strictly speaking,
be said to be an offence affecting the
administration of justice.
* * *

25. An enlarged interpretation to
Section 195(1)(b)(ii), whereby the bar
created by the said provision would also
operate where after commission of an act
of forgery the document is subsequently
produced in court, is capable of great
misuse"...

21. The allegation in the present case
is not that the applicants fabricated any
document in proceedings pending in the
Court. The allegation is that without any
proceedings having been initiated and
conducted in the Court, the applicants
fabricated a fake order purportedly passed
by the Court. In these circumstances, in
view of the law laid explained by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh
Marwah (Supra), the bar contained in
Section 195 Cr.P.C. would not apply in the
facts of the present case.

22. The submission of the learned
Counsel for the applicant is that after a
Final
Report
was
submitted
after
investigation conducted in furtherance of
the F.I.R., the same provision will apply to
filing of the objections against the Final
Report and the objections could only be
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
filed by the Court, and not by the opposite
party no. 2.

23. The words used in Section 195
Cr.P.C. are that no Court shall take
cognizance of any offence described in
Section 463, or punishable under Section
471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said
Code, when such offence is alleged to have
been committed in respect of a document
produced or given in evidence in a
proceeding in any Court, or of any criminal
conspiracy to commit, or attempt to
commit, or the abetment of, any offence
specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii),
except on the complaint in writing of that
Court or by such officer of the Court as that
Court may authorise in writing in this
behalf, or of some other Court to which that
Court
is
subordinate. This
provision
imposes
a
restriction
against
taking
cognizance of certain offences except upon
a complaint made by the Court. The F.I.R.
regarding commission of the offences in the
present case was made by the Court. The
F.I.R. in the present case was lodged by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in whose Court
the alleged forged document was filed.
Therefore, even if the bar of Section 195
Cr.P.C. would apply to the present case, the
condition contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C.,
that the Court can take cognizance of
certain offences only upon the complaint
made by the Court, stands satisfied.

24. In Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of
Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that "The injured
person or any relative of the deceased,
though not entitled to notice from the
Magistrate, has locus to appear before the
Magistrate at the time of consideration of
the report, if he otherwise comes to know
that the report is going to be considered by
the Magistrate and if he wants to make his
submissions in regard to the report, the
Magistrate is bound to hear him".

25. The opposite party no. 3 being the
victim of the offence and he having
suffered a legal injury due to commission
of the offence, had every right to file
protest petition against the Final Report and
the Court has rightly accepted his protest
petition and rejected the Final Report.

26. The words used Section 195
Cr.P.C. are plain and unambiguous and are
not open to be interpreted differently. It is
one of the basic principles of interpretation
of Statutes that while interpreting Statutes,
neither any words should be added nor
should the same be subtracted. The words
used regarding lodging of a complaint,
cannot be interpreted in a vast manner so as
to include a restriction regarding filing of a
protest petition against a Final report so as
to defeat the rights of the victims of
offences.

27. The recent trend in law indicates
increasing recognition of the rights of the
victims of the offences, and their right to
participate
in
the
proceeding
is
acknowledged, even if they themselves are
not the informants.

28. In Sudha Singh v. State of U.P.,
(2021) 4 SCC 781, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court entertained an Appeal filed by the
wife of a deceased victim of a predicate
offence under Section 302 I.P.C., against
an order passed by the High Court
granting bail to a person accused of
committing an offence under Section 3
(1) of the U. P. Gangsters and Anti Social
Activities
Prevention
Act,
although
neither she, nor her deceased husband
was the informant in the case under the
Gangsters Act.
8 All. Arun Kumar Singh @ Munna & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
29

29. In Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish
Mishra,
(2022)
9
SCC
321,
while
discussing
the
development
of
law
regarding the rights of the victims of
offences, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
enunciated the following principles: -

"15. Until recently, criminal law
had been viewed on a dimensional plane
wherein the courts were required to
adjudicate between the accused and the
State. The "victim"-the de facto sufferer
of a crime had no participation in the
adjudicatory process and was made to sit
outside the Court as a mute spectator.
However, with the recognition that the
ethos of criminal justice dispensation to
prevent
and
punish
"crime"
had
surreptitiously turned its back on the
"victim", the jurisprudence with respect to
the rights of victims to be heard and to
participate in criminal proceedings began
to positively evolve.
* * *

20. It is pertinent to mention that
the legislature has thoughtfully given a
wide and expansive meaning to the
expression "victim" which "means a
person who has suffered any loss or injury
caused by reason of the act or omission
for which the accused person has been
charged and the expression "victim"
includes his or her guardian or legal
heir".

21. This Court in Mallikarjun
Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2019) 2
SCC 752, while dealing with questions
regarding a victim's right to file an appeal
under Section 372 CrPC, observed that
there
was
need
to
give
adequate
representation to victims in criminal
proceedings. The Court therein affirmed the
victim's right to file an appeal against an
order of acquittal. In Mallikarjun Kodagali
[Mallikarjun
Kodagali
v.
State
of
Karnataka, though the Court was primarily
concerned with a different legal issue, it
will be fruitful in the present context to take
note of some of the observations made
therein :

"3. What follows in a trial is
often
secondary
victimisation
through
repeated appearances in court in a hostile
or a semi-hostile environment in the
courtroom. Till sometime back, secondary
victimisation was in the form of aggressive
and intimidating cross-examination, but a
more
humane
interpretation
of
the
provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 has
made the trial a little less uncomfortable
for the victim of an offence, particularly the
victim of a sexual crime. In this regard, the
judiciary has been proactive in ensuring
that the rights of victims are addressed,
but a lot more needs to be done. Today, the
rights of an accused far outweigh the
rights of the victim of an offence in many
respects.
There
needs
to
be
some
balancing of the concerns and equalising
their
rights
so
that
the
criminal
proceedings are fair to both.
***

8. The rights of victims, and
indeed
victimology,
is
an
evolving
jurisprudence and it is more than
appropriate to move forward in a positive
direction, rather than stand still or worse,
take a step backward. A voice has been
given to victims of crime by Parliament and
the judiciary and that voice needs to be
heard, and if not already heard, it needs to
be raised to a higher decibel so that it is
clearly heard."

22. It cannot be gainsaid that the
rights of a victim under the amended CrPC
are substantive, enforceable, and are
another facet of human rights. The victim's
right, therefore, cannot be termed or
construed restrictively like a brutum fulmen
[Ed. : The literal translation from the Latin
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
approximates to "meaningless thunderbolt
or lightning", and is used to convey the
idea of an "empty threat" or something
which is ineffective.] . We reiterate that
these
rights
are
totally
independent,
incomparable, and are not accessory or
auxiliary to those of the State under the
CrPC. The presence of "State" in the
proceedings,
therefore,
does
not
tantamount to according a hearing to a
"victim" of the crime.

23.
A
"victim"
within
the
meaning of CrPC cannot be asked to
await the commencement of trial for
asserting his/her right to participate in the
proceedings. He/She has a legally vested
right to be heard at every step post the
occurrence of an offence. Such a "victim"
has unbridled participatory rights from
the
stage
of
investigation
till
the
culmination of the proceedings in an
appeal or revision. We may hasten to
clarify
that
"victim"
and
"complainant/informant" are two distinct
connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It
is
not
always
necessary
that
the
complainant/informant is also a "victim",
for even a stranger to the act of crime can
be an "informant", and similarly, a
"victim" need not be the complainant or
informant of a felony.

24. The abovestated enunciations
are not to be conflated with certain
statutory provisions, such as those present
in the Special Acts like the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, where there is a legal
obligation to hear the victim at the time of
granting bail. Instead, what must be taken
note of is that:

24.1.First,
the
Indian
jurisprudence
is
constantly
evolving,
whereby, the right of victims to be heard,
especially in cases involving heinous
crimes,
is
increasingly
being
acknowledged.

24.2.Second, where the victims
themselves
have
come
forward
to
participate in a criminal proceeding, they
must be accorded with an opportunity of a
fair and effective hearing. If the right to
file an appeal against acquittal, is not
accompanied with the right to be heard at
the time of deciding a bail application, the
same may result in grave miscarriage of
justice.
Victims
certainly
cannot
be
expected to be sitting on the fence and
watching the proceedings from afar,
especially when they may have legitimate
grievances. It is the solemn duty of a court
to deliver justice before the memory of an
injustice eclipses.
(Emphasis supplied)

30. Therefore, I am of the considered
view that the victim of the offence had the
right to file a protest petition against the
Final Report and the trial Court has not
committed any error in entertaining the
protest petition and rejecting the Final
Report.

31. The learned Counsel for the
applicant has relied upon the judgment in
the case of State of Karnataka v.
Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

"8. ...in cases where in the
course of the same transaction an offence
for which no complaint by a court is
necessary under Section 195(1)(b) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence
for which a complaint of a court is
necessary under that sub-section, are
committed, it is not possible to split up and
hold that the prosecution of the accused for
the offences not mentioned in Section
8 All. Arun Kumar Singh @ Munna & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
31
195(1)(b)
of
the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure should be upheld."

32. Since I have already held that the
F.I.R. for all the offences was lodged by the
Court and not by the victim and the
offences alleged were not committed
regarding any documents that had been
filed in the Court, but the offence was
committed
by
forging
the
entire
proceedings of the Court without any
proceeding having actually been initiated in
the Court, the bar of Section 195 is not
attracted to the present case and the victim
had rightly filed a protest petition against
the
Final
report
submitted
after
investigation, I am of the view that the
aforesaid principle of law is not attracted to
the facts of the present case.

33. The learned Counsel for the
applicant next submitted that the offence of
forgery is made out only against the maker
of the false document and there is no
allegation that the applicants had forged
any document themselves. In support of
this submission, he has relied upon the
decision in the case of Sheila Sebastian v.
R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "a
charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a
person who is not the maker of the same".

34. In the present case, the Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Kunda,
Pratapgarh had rejected the Final Report
and took cognizance of commission of
offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 420,
467, 468, 471, 472 and 474 I.P.C. by the
accused persons Arun Kumar Singh alias
Munna, Kiran Kumar Singh, Satish Kumar
Singh, Dinesh Kumar Singh, Satish Kumar
Tripathi, Ramakant Dwivedi and Pratap
Bahadur Singh by means of an order dated
01.07.2017. The applicants had challenged
the aforesaid order dated 01.07.2017 by
filing Criminal Revision No. 171/2017
which was allowed by means of an order
dated 02.06.2018 passed by the Additional
Session Judge, Pratapgarh on the ground
that the trial Court had not discussed the
prima facie evidence before summoning the
accused
persons.
The
order
dated
01.07.2017 was set aside by the Revisional
Court and the matter was remanded for
being decided afresh. After remand, the
trial
court
passed
an
order
dated
18.08.2022, again rejecting the objections
filed by the applicants against the charge
sheet. The trial Court took cognizance of
the offences under Sections 120-B, 419,
420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 474 I.P.C.
against the applicants and one Satish
Kumar Tripathi and summoned them to
face the trial. The trial Court has noted in
its order that the employee Satish Kumar
Tripathi has been held guilty of committing
forgery in the records and he has been
punished in departmental proceedings by
reverting him to the original post of Junior
Assistant in the lowest of pay scale. The
trial Court has further held that the
employee had committed the offence under
a criminal conspiracy with the applicants,
who are the beneficiaries of the offence.

35.

For
being
charged
with
commission of the offence of criminal
conspiracy alongwith the commission of
the substantive offences committed in
furtherance of the conspiracy, it is not
necessary that the accused person should
himself have committed the substantive
offences also. Therefore, I am unable to
accept the second submission of the learned
Counsel for the applicant.

36. The learned Counsel for the
applicants has lastly submitted that the
dispute between the parties is purely a civil
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dispute and the criminal proceedings
initiated for the same is an abuse of process
of Court. He has relied upon the judgment
in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha
versus State of Karnataka, 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 976, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reiterated that "this Court
has at innumerable instances expressed its
disapproval for imparting criminal color to
a civil dispute, made merely to take
advantage of a relatively quick relief
granted in a criminal case in contrast to a
civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing
but an abuse of the process of law which
must be discouraged in its entirety."

37. Similarly, in Randheer Singh v.
State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court again held that: -

33. ... It is reiterated at the cost
of repetition that the FIR does not disclose
any offence so far as the appellant is
concerned. There is no whisper of how
and in what manner, this appellant is
involved in any criminal offence and the
charge-sheet, the relevant part whereof has
been extracted above, is absolutely vague.
There can be no doubt that jurisdiction
under Section 482Cr.P.C. should be used
sparingly for the purpose of preventing
abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Whether a complaint discloses criminal
offence or not depends on the nature of the
allegation and whether the essential
ingredients of a criminal offence are
present or not has to be judged by the High
Court. There can be no doubt that a
complaint disclosing civil transactions
may also have a criminal texture. The
High Court has, however, to see whether
the dispute of a civil nature has been
given colour of criminal offence. In such a
situation, the High Court should not
hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings
as held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra
[Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand,
(2013) 11 SCC 673 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri)
76] extracted above."

38. However, in the present case the
F.I.R. was lodged after the S.D.M. Sadar,
Pratapgarh found in an enquiry that paper
book of Case No. 301 had been prepared by
committing forgery and fabrication. The
applicants are the beneficiaries of the
commission of forgery and fabrication of
the Court's records. This allegation clearly
makes out commission of an offence and it
is not at all a dispute of a civil nature.
Therefore, the proceedings cannot be
quashed on this ground also.

39. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had given the following
categories of cases by way of illustration,
wherein the inherent power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice: -

"(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 FIR 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
8 All. Shivanshu Mudgal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
33
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."

40. I am of the considered view that the
present case does not fall in any of the
aforesaid categories. Moreover, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had added a note of caution in
Bhajan Lal (Supra) in the following words:

"103. We also give a note of
caution to the effect that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised
very
sparingly
and
with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of
rare cases; that the court will not be justified
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 extraordinary or inherent powers
do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the
court to act according to its whim or
caprice."

41. In view of the foregoing discussion,
I find no merit in the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

42. Before parting with the case, I deem
it appropriate to observe that the date
mentioned by the Presiding Officer of the
Revisional Court in the revisional order is
12.05.2022 whereas the date printed on the
order is 12.05.2023. The entries made by the
copying official on the certified copy filed
with the application shows the application for
obtaining a certified copy of the order was
filed on 15.05.2023 but the Head Copyist has
signed the certified copy on 12.05.2023, i.e.
three days prior to filing of the application for
obtaining a certified copy of the order. This
order should be communicated to the District
Judge, Pratapgarh so that he may look into by
the matter and take appropriate steps to avoid
recurrence of such mistakes.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 33
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.06.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 15925 of 2023

Shivanshu Mudgal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant: