# Asha Rathor v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 1095 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-10-31 - **Case number:** J. Application U/S 482. No. 25387 of 2024 - **Bench:** Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/asha-rathor-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52622 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Whether the summoning order and subsequent non-bailable warrants issued against the applicant in Complaint Case under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC are valid, or whether they constitute an abuse of the process of law given the civil nature of the dispute. HEADNOTES 1096 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section - 156(3), 200, 202, 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section - 120B, 323, 427, 420, 467, 471, 504, 506:- An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing of the summoning order and subsequent non-bailable warrants - arising from a dispute over the alleged fraudulent execution of an agreement to sale - FIR - Final Report - Protest petition - a complaint case registered - Applicant is a 64 years old widow whose coaccused husband has since passed away, highlighted that another co-accused had already compromised with the complainant, while civil suits regarding the agreement to sale remain pending - Court held that, criminal proceedings are malicious, vexatious, and is basically civil in nature and are purely an outcome of ulterior motive to extort money from the applicant - therefore, the impugned orders are quashed - further, matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass a fresh order in light of the Supreme Court precedent - accordingly, application is allowed. (Para - 9, 12) Application Allowed. (E-11) CASE LAW CITED Usha Chakraborty & Another Vs. State of West Bengal & Another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 67. LIST OF ACTS Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) LIST OF KEYWORDS Summoning order - non-bailable warrant - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Civil dispute vs. criminal proceedings - Agreement to sale - Protest petition - Abuse of process of law - Widow applicant - Compromise deed - Malicious prosecution. CASE ARISING FROM Complaint Case No. 3833 of 2014 (Dharmpal vs. Chander) - Police Station: Sadar Bazar, District Meerut - Related FIR: Case Crime No. 112 of 2011 - Civil Suit: Original Suit No. 1567 of 2008 (pending before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Meerut). APPEARANCE OF PARTIES Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Namaan Raj Vanshi Counsel for Respondent(s): GA. Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, AGA. ## Text 10 All. Asha Rathor Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1095 hence, this reasoning of the Appellate Authority holding that the saledeed dated 09.07.1976 bad or not bonafide cannot be sustained. 33. Insofar as the second reasoning adopted by the Appellate Authority is concerned, if examined, would reveal that there is no consideration of the fact as to when and how much area was inherited by Ram Rakhan from Smt. Chandrika Devi. This is important for the reason that as noticed above, the sale-deed dated 09.07.1976 had been executed, hence, on that date, the land available with Ram Rakhan was apparently within the ceiling area, which was further reduced by the area sold out by Ram Rakhan by the sale-deed dated 09.07.1976 in favour of Bansi Dar. Thereafter, with this residue how much and when the share of Smt. Chandrika Devi was inherited would be seen and thereafter again it will have to be noticed as to what was the nature of the said land that is to say irritated or non-irrigated and who were the family members of Ram Rakhan and how much land was available to determine the actual land in the hands of Ram Rakhan and only thereafter the proper ascertainment could be made whether the land available with the petitioner breached the ceiling limit or not, needless to say, even this consideration is not present in the impugned order. 34. It is also reiterated that this was a consideration which ought to have been made by the Appellate Authority especially when it was directed by the High Court to be undertaken by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 04.01.1989, hence, for this reason as well, the order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained. 35. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 17.05.2007 cannot be sustained and is patently arbitrary. Accordingly, it is set aside. The issue in question required to be considered in light of the observations made including it is noticed that a fresh order be passed by the Appellate Authority within a period of six months from the date, a certified copy of this order is placed before the Appellate Authority. It is also stated that no fresh evidence would be permitted to either of the parties and on the material already available, the Appellate Authority shall pass an order. 36. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. There shall be on order as to costs. ---------- (2025) 10 ILRA 1095 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. Application U/S 482. No. 25387 of 2024 Asha Rathor ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Namman Raj Vanshi Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A., Sanjay Kr. Srivastava ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether the summoning order and subsequent non-bailable warrants issued against the applicant in Complaint Case under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC are valid, or whether they constitute an abuse of the process of law given the civil nature of the dispute. HEADNOTES 1096 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section - 156(3), 200, 202, 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section - 120B, 323, 427, 420, 467, 471, 504, 506:- An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing of the summoning order and subsequent non-bailable warrants - arising from a dispute over the alleged fraudulent execution of an agreement to sale - FIR - Final Report - Protest petition - a complaint case registered - Applicant is a 64 years old widow whose coaccused husband has since passed away, highlighted that another co-accused had already compromised with the complainant, while civil suits regarding the agreement to sale remain pending - Court held that, criminal proceedings are malicious, vexatious, and is basically civil in nature and are purely an outcome of ulterior motive to extort money from the applicant - therefore, the impugned orders are quashed - further, matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass a fresh order in light of the Supreme Court precedent - accordingly, application is allowed. (Para - 9, 12) Application Allowed. (E-11) CASE LAW CITED Usha Chakraborty & Another Vs. State of West Bengal & Another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 67. LIST OF ACTS Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) LIST OF KEYWORDS Summoning order - non-bailable warrant - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Civil dispute vs. criminal proceedings - Agreement to sale - Protest petition - Abuse of process of law - Widow applicant - Compromise deed - Malicious prosecution. CASE ARISING FROM Complaint Case No. 3833 of 2014 (Dharmpal vs. Chander) - Police Station: Sadar Bazar, District Meerut - Related FIR: Case Crime No. 112 of 2011 - Civil Suit: Original Suit No. 1567 of 2008 (pending before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Meerut). APPEARANCE OF PARTIES Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Namaan Raj Vanshi Counsel for Respondent(s): GA. Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, AGA. (Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, J.) 1.Counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2, is taken on record. 2.Heard Sri Namman Raj Vanshi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3.Learned counsel for the applicant does not propose to file the rejoinder affidavit. 4.The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to allow this application and to quash the summoning order dated 08.05.2015 as well as non-bailable warrant dated 14.05.2024, 22.05.2024 and 24.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 3833 of 2014 (Dharmpal vs. Chander) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Meerut, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate1st, Court No. 2, Meerut. 5.Briefly stated, the opposite party no. 2 Dharmpal, the complainant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that registered agreement to sale dated 01.12.2005 was executed fraudulently by the father of Chander (husband of the applicant). On 03.02.2008 at around 9.00 A.M., the complainant along with his family members was present in his house when his tenant Chander and his wife Asha along with six others embargoed 10 All. Asha Rathor Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1097 into his house and started abusing the complainant and his family with an intention to get the signatures of the complainant and his father on some blank papers which resulted in lodging of FIR dated 30.03.2011 bearing Case Crime No. 112 of 2011 under Sections 420, 467, 471, 120B, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Meerut against the applicant Smt. Asha Rathor, her husband Chander, Sheth Singh and Mahendra Kumar. After the completion of the investigation, a Final Report No. 37 of 2011 dated 06.04.2011 was submitted before the court concerned. 6.Being aggrieved by the Final Report, the opposite party no. 2 filed a protest petition having Misc. Case No. 751 of 2011 (Dharmpal vs. Chander and others) dated 11.7.2013/21.10.2013 wherein the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 13.08.2014 allowed the protest petition filed by the first informant/opposite party no. 2 and registered it as a complaint case fixing the date for recording the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the statement of the complainant was recorded on oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. namely Nitin and Chetan as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and summoned the applicant along with three others to face trial under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC. 7.The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the summoning order dated 08.05.2015 has been passed in a most arbitrary and cursory manner, without application of mind. 8.It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a widow lady, aged about 64 years and is currently in an ailing condition. It has further been submitted that the co-accused Chander, the husband of the applicant has died and the continuation of the present criminal proceedings is the sheer abuse of the process of the Court. 9.Further, it has been pointed out that the co-accused Mahendra Kumar has entered into a compromise dated 17.08.2019 with a complainant by filing a compromise deed placed as Annexure No. 13 to the present petition. It has been stated that the opposite party no. 2 has filed a suit for cancellation of the registered agreement to sale dated 01.12.2005 and the Original Suit No. 1567 of 2008 has been filed by husband of applicant before the learned Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Meerut for passing of a decree which are pending decision. It has been stated that the dispute is basically civil in nature and has been given a criminal cloak. The criminal proceedings drawn against the applicant is an abuse of the process of law as well as process of the court as the said proceedings are malicious and vexatious and are purely an outcome of ulterior motive to extort money from the applicant. 10.Learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for Opposite Party no. 2 could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 11.The Hon'ble Apex Court in Usha Chakraborty & Another vs. State of West Bengal & Another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67 has observed that ?the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature. The appellants and the respondents have given a cloak of criminal offence in the issue-coupled with the fact that in respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature, the respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by 1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES instituting a civil suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against the appellant." 12.In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the orders dated 08.05.2015 as well as non-bailable warrant dated 14.05.2024, 22.05.2024 and 24.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 3833 of 2014 (Dharmpal vs. Chander) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Meerut are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Court concerned to pass a fresh order in light of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 13.With the aforesaid direction, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. ---------- (2025) 10 ILRA 1098 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.10.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 39561 of 2025 Karamavir & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: S Sengar Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning the Internal Committee report at the stage of considering discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. Whether the departmental inquiry findings, which partly negated the allegation of rape, should have been considered before framing charges. Whether the rejection of the application causes prejudice to the applicant's rights and career. HEADNOTES Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section - 91, 227, - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section - 354D, 376, 420, 506, - Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 - Sections 67, 67A :- Application u/s 528 BNSS - filed to challenge the trial court's order rejecting Section 91 Cr.P.C. application - Opposite party no. 2, a lady constable in consensual relationship with applicant who is also a constable, lodged FIR - alleging rape, cheating, intimidation, stalking under IPC and obscene messages and videos under IT Act - investigation - parallel a departmental inquiry also conducted by an internal departmental committee - charge sheet - Discharge Application - Application under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. - rejected by trial court - Applicant's plea - relied on departmental Internal Committee report, which did not substantiate rape allegation, and sought its summoning under Section 91 Cr.P.C. during discharge proceedings - Court's finds that, applicant himself admitted some allegations and apologized in inquiry - hence, trial court rightly rejected the Section 91 application - held report not legally required at discharge stage and found no abuse of process or travesty of justice in the impugned order - accordingly, Application is dismissed. (Para - 7, 8, 9, 12) Application Dismissed. (E-11) CASE LAW CITED Om Prakash Sharma v. CBI, (2000) 5 SCC 679 - Neelesh Jain v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 Crl LJ 2151 - Nitya Dharmananda alias K. Lenin v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy, (2018) 2 SCC 93 LIST OF ACTS