# Bhupinder Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 436
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.23667 of 2008
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastva
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhupinder-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48034
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Section 200,202 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 383 - Extortion,
Section 386 - Extortion by putting a
person in fear of death or grievous hurt ,
section 506 - Punishment for criminal
intimidation .

Complaint against applicants and two armed
unknown persons - allegation - applicants asked
complainant to sign certain blank papers - for
the purpose of compromising proceedings -
refusal - applicants pulled gun on the wife of
complainant - applicants summoned to face
trial - applicants approached Court for quashing
the entire proceedings.(Para - 2 to 6)

HELD:- Continuation of the criminal proceedings
against the applicants is an abuse of process of
the Court and ends of justice requires that the
said proceedings be quashed . Entire criminal
proceedings quashed. (Para - 22)

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

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

46. Moreover, in the facts of the
present case looking at the nature of the
offence disclosed in the police report, the
case which is to be tried would be a
summons
case
and
the
procedure
prescribed for the same would be as per
Chapter XX of the Code, wherein there is
no distinction with regard to the manner in
which the trial is to proceed between cases
instituted on a police report and those
instituted otherwise than on a police report
i.e. a complaint. Accordingly, there would
be no material change in the procedure of
trial and as such the applicant cannot be
said to have been prejudiced by the order of
cognizance by the Magistrate, for this
reason also.

47. In the case at hand, the
proceedings
were
initiated
with
the
registration of an NCR relating to noncognizable offence and the investigation
was carried out by the police pursuant to an
order of the Magistrate under Section
155(2) of the Code and thereafter a police
report under Section 173(2) also disclosing
non-cognizable
offence
was
placed
whereupon cognizance was taken by the
Magistrate. In view of the foregoing
discussion, these set of facts would
correspond to Case III, as referred to in
paragraph 39 and accordingly, the same
would not be covered within the purview of
the explanation to Section 2(d) to bring it
within the ambit of the term "complaint".
The cognizance taken by the Magistrate,
therefore, cannot be faulted with.

48. This court is, therefore, not
inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code in the facts
of the present case.

48. The application thus, fails and is
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022)01ILR A436
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTVA, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.23667 of 2008

Bhupinder Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Komal Khare, Sri Somesh Khare

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri A.P. Tiwari, Sri S.S. Tripathi

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Section 200,202 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 383 - Extortion,
Section 386 - Extortion by putting a
person in fear of death or grievous hurt ,
section 506 - Punishment for criminal
intimidation .

Complaint against applicants and two armed
unknown persons - allegation - applicants asked
complainant to sign certain blank papers - for
the purpose of compromising proceedings -
refusal - applicants pulled gun on the wife of
complainant - applicants summoned to face
trial - applicants approached Court for quashing
the entire proceedings.(Para - 2 to 6)

HELD:- Continuation of the criminal proceedings
against the applicants is an abuse of process of
the Court and ends of justice requires that the
said proceedings be quashed . Entire criminal
proceedings quashed. (Para - 22)

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

List of Cases cited:-

1. St. of Hary. & ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors., 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335
1 All. Bhupinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
437
2. St. of A.P. Vs Golconda Linga Swamy & anr.,
(2004) 6 SCC 522

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

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Somesh Khare, learned
counsel for the applicants and Sri A.P.
Tiwari, learned counsel representing the
Opposite Party No.2. Learned A.G.A.
appears on behalf of the State.

2. The instant application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing
of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint
Case No.4859 of 2002 (Deepchand Vs.
Bhupendra and others) (renumbered as 91 of
2007) under Sections 506, 386 I.P.C., P.S.
Turkpatti, District Kushinagar, instituted by
the Opposite Party No.2 against the
applicants and pending before the court of the
learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Jr.
Division)/Judicial
Magistrate,
Kasaya,
Kushinagar.

3. Briefly stated the facts sworn of
unnecessary details are that the Opposite
Party No.2, Deep Chand Singh, who was
employed as a Workman/Assistant Operator
in the establishment of the applicants namely
K & T Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Rampur, Doraha,
District
Ludhiana,
lodged
a
Criminal
Complaint on 07.01.2002 before the Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Kasaya,
District
Kushinagar, against the applicants and two
armed unknown persons alleging inter-alia
that on 16.12.2001 at about 12:00 noon the
applicants who are the Manager, Director and
Managing Director of K & T Chemicals Pvt.
Ltd., Rampur Doraha Ludhiana along with
two gunmen came in a Car and asked the
complainant to sign certain blank papers.
On asking of the complainant to sign certain
blank papers the applicants informed him that
the papers would be used for the purpose of
filing compromise in the case lodged by him
against the company in the Tribunal and for
withdrawing the same. On the refusal of the
complainant the applicants got annoyed and
pulled the gun on the wife of the complainant
and threatened to abduct her and his child and
kill them. The Opposite Party No.2 further
stated in the complaint that he had worked in
the Company in the capacity of Assistant
Operator and on 16.17.2000 night about 2:30
am he lost both his eyes during the course of
working and he has lodged a case for
compensation
in
the
Labour
Tribunal
Ludhiana which is pending. The complainant
out of fear put his signatures on all five
pages. The incident was witnessed by the
wife of the complainant, Madan Singh son of
late Sitaram Singh and Ram Niwas son of
Vijay Bahadur. The applicants left after
threatening the family of the complainant.
The FIR was not registered despite all efforts
and finally the complaint has been lodged
with the prayer that the applicants be
summoned and punished.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate,
Kasaya, Kushinagar after considering the
statements of the Complainant/Opposite
Party No.2 and witnesses recorded under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and other
materials
on
record
dismissed
the
complaint vide order dated 22.02.2002
being of the view that no ground to
prosecute the applicants under Sections 386
and 506 IPC was made out as admittedly
both eyesight of the complainant was lost
and from the statement of PW-1 and PW-2
the identity of the accused applicants, who
were
alleged
to
have
visited
the
complainant, could not be established.
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. The order dated 22.10.2002 of the
Judicial Magistrate, Kasaya Kushinagar
was carried in Revision before the District
and Sessions Judge (FTC) Ist, Kushinagar
being Criminal Revision No.61 of 2003.
The Revisional Court set aside the order
dated 22.10.2002 of the Judicial Magistrate
rejecting the complaint being of the view
that the learned Magistrate failed in his
legal duty to test the statement of the
complainant as also the witnesses PW-1
and PW-2 by asking questions. The
Revisional Court observed that offence
under Sections 386, 506 I.P.C. was made
out against the applicants. The Judicial
Magistrate was directed to rehear the
complainant and pass appropriate orders.
The learned Magistrate vide his order dated
13.02.2007 in compliance of the order of
the Revisional Court holding that offence
under Sections 386 and 506 I.P.C. was
made out against the applicants summoned
the applicants to face the trial.

6. The applicants in the aforesaid
circumstances have approached this Court
for quashing the entire proceedings of the
complaint case.

7. The Opposite Party No.2, Deep
Chand Singh/Complainant has put in
appearance and filed his counter affidavit
though Sri A.P. Tiwari, Advocate. The
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
opposed on the ground that the Opposite
Party No.2/Complainant lost both of his
eyes in an accident in the factory premises
during the course of employment on
16/17.08.2000 at 2:30 A.M. and the
reconciliation before the D.L.C. failed and
the dispute was referred to the Labour
Tribunal and since the complainant had lost
both his eyes and became helpless and by
forcible taking the signatures of the
complainant on blank papers the applicants
misused the same and got the case before
the
Labour
Tribunal
dismissed
as
withdrawn.

8. The learned Magistrate did not
properly appreciate the averments made in
the
complaint
and
statements
under
Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and the order
rejecting the complaint was rightly set
aside by the Revisional Court. After
remand, the learned Magistrate is well
within
his
powers
to
summon
the
applicants to face the trial. There is no
illegality in the order of the learned
Magistrate and no interference is called for
and the application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. being devoid of merits warrants
dismissal.

9. It is submitted by the learned
counsel
for
the
applicants
that
the
unfortunate incident which resulted in the
loss of both eyesight of the Opposite Party
No.2, took place on account of the
negligent attitude of the Opposite Party
No.2. While working in the chemical
factory the workmen are required to put on
safety glasses along with safety spectacles
which the Opposite Party No.2 did not do.
The applicants being sympathetic to the
Opposite Party No.2 look him to various
eye specialists but efforts to restore his
eyesight were in vein. He submits that the
incident at the factory took place on
17.08.2000. The alleged occurrence takes
place as per version of the complaint of the
Opposite Party No.2 on 16.12.2001. The
complaint is stated to have been lodged on
07.01.2002. The proceedings before the
Labour Court, Ludhiana is stated to have
been lodged on 27.08.2002 after about
seven months and decided on 01.06.2005
as is evident from Annexure-9 to the
affidavit filed in support of the Application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If the statements
1 All. Bhupinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
439
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. along
with allegations in the complaint are
presumed to be true, the alleged obtaining
of blank signatures by the applicants for the
purpose of compromising the proceedings
before the Labour Court, Ludhiana falls flat
inasmuch as on the date of the incident, no
proceedings before the Labour Court were
pending. He submits that the filing of the
complaint by the Opposite Party No.2 is
nothing, but an abuse of the process of the
Court and hence, the entire proceedings are
liable to be quashed.

10. He further submits that no offence
under Sections 386, 506 IPC is made out
against
the
applicants
and
learned
Magistrate has committed grave error in
summoning the applicants to face the trial
under the aforesaid sections.

11. The submissions of the learned
counsel for the applicants may be summed
up as under:

(1) No offence under Sections
386 and 506 IPC can be said to be made
out from the allegations made under the
complaint.

(2) The complainant has prima
facie failed to demonstrate that the
elements of Section 383 IPC are available
to maintain the criminal complaint.

(3) The Courts below i.e. the
learned Magistrate as also the Revisional
Court failed in its duty to ascertain that all
elements provided for in Section 383 IPC
were available and attracted in order to
maintain the criminal complaint.

12. In order to appreciate the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
applicants, it would be apt to consider
the provisions of Sections 386 & 506 IPC.
Section 386 IPC provides for punishment
for extortion by putting a person in fear of
death or grievous hurt. What would
constitute extortion is provided under
Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code,
which reads as under:

"383.
Extortion.
-
Whoever
intentionally puts any person in fear of any
injury to that person, or to any other, and
thereby dishonestly induces the person so
put in fear to deliver to any person any
property or valuable security, or anything
signed or sealed which may be converted
into
a
valuable
security,
commits
"extortion"."

13.

A
bare
perusal
of
the
aforementioned
provision
would
demonstrate that the following ingredients
would constitute the offence.

1. The accused must put any
person in fear of injury to that person or
any other person.

2. The putting of a person in such
fear must be intentional.

3. The accused must thereby
induce the person so put in fear to deliver
to any person, any property, valuable
security or anything signed or sealed which
may be converted into a valuable security.

4. Such inducement must be done
dishonestly.

14. Section 386 IPC reads as under:

"386. Extortion by putting a
person in fear of death or grievous hurt. -
440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Whoever commits extortion by putting any
person in fear of death or of grievous hurt
to that person tor to any other, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

15. It would also be appropriate to
understand the words "Valuable and
Security" appearing in Section 383 IPC.

16. The term "Valuable as defined in
Blacks' Law Dictionary means-Worth a
good price, having financial as market
value. The term "Security" as defined in the
Dictionary means:-

1. Collateral given or pledged to
guarantee the fulfillment of an obligations;
esp. the assurance that a creditor will be
repaid (sus. With interest) any money or
credit extended to a debtor. 2. A person
who is bound by some type of guarantee;
SURETY. 3. The stat of being secure, esp.
from danger or attack. 4. An instrument
that evidences the holder's ownership right
to firm (e.g. a stock), the holder's creditor
relationship with a firm or Government
(e.g. a bond). *A security indicates an
interest based on an investment in a
common enterprise. Under an important
statutory definition, a security is any
interest or instrument relating to finances,
including a note, stock, treasury stock,
bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness,
certificate of interest or participation in a
profit sharing agreement, collateral trust
certificate, reorganization certificate or
subscription, transferable share, investment
contract, voting trust certificate, certificate
of deposit for a security, fractional
undivided interest in oil, gas, or other
mineral rights, or certificate of interest or
participation in, temporary or interim
certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or
warrant or right to subscribe to or
purchase any of these things. A security
also includes any put, call, straddle, option,
or privilege on any security, certificate of
deposit, group or index of securities, or any
such device entered into on a national
securities exchange, relating to foreign
currency. 15 USCA {77b(1) Cf. SHARE(2);
stock (4).

17. Now, having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case, the Court is
of the opinion that no case under Section
386 IPC can be said to be made out against
the applicants from the allegations set out
in the criminal complaint lodged against
them. The reasons for the same are as
under:-

(1) The blank papers allegedly
got signed by the applicants from the
complainant were never converted into a
valuable security. The said blank papers
were never used before the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana. There is
no allegation in this regard in the complaint
or in the statements recorded under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

(2) The records reveal that the
case before the Labour Court, Ludhiana is
Reference No.1396 was got instituted on
27.08.2002 much after the lodging of the
complaint on 07.01.2002. On the date of
institution of the complainant i.e. on
07.01.2002 there was no proceedings
pending
before
the
Labour
Court,
Ludhiana, where the signed papers could be
utilized. Moreover, the proceedings before
the Labour Court, Ludhiana were not
pressed on the statement of the authorized
representative of the workman/ Opposite
Party No.2 to the effect that he does not
press the reference for the time being on
account of technical error i.e. wrong name
1 All. Bhupinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
441
of the opposite party and he reserved the
right to file fresh dispute after rectifying the
error.
The
reference
was
answered
accordingly with observation that the
workman will be at liberty to file fresh
dispute after rectifying the error if he so
desired vide order dated 02.06.2005 which
has been filed on record by the applicants.

(3)
The
Opposite
Party
No.2/Complainant has miserably failed to
demonstrate that ingredients of Section 383
IPC are available in the complaint so
instituted so as to warrant criminal
prosecution of the applicants under Section
386 IPC.

(4)
The
factum
that
after
withdrawal of the case before the Labour
Court, Ludhiana no fresh claim was
instituted despite liberty having been
granted to the Opposite Party No.2 goes a
long way in establishing the falsity of the
case against the applicants. The criminal
complaint against the applicants can safely
be said to have been instituted maliciously
with ulterior motive and as such is
frivolous, vexatious or oppressive and is an
abuse of the process of the Court.

(5)
The
allegations
in
the
complaint regarding criminal intimidation
at the instance of the applicants have been
made only to add colour to the complaint.
The alleged occurrence of the incident
appears to be improbable in the wake of the
allegations set out in the complaint. No
offence under Section 506 IPC can be said
to be made out against the applicants.

19. The Apex Court in the case of
State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan
Lal and others, reported in 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 held as under:-

"102. 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 FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1)The Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973; Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2)The Code of Criminal Procedure
1973; 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
442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

20. The law laid down in the case of
Bhajan Lal (Supra) was reiterated in the
case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.
Golconda Linga Swamy and another
(2004) 6 SCC 522 wherein the Apex Court
has observed as under:-

"5. Exercise of power under
Section 482 of the Code in a case of this
nature is the exception and not the rule.
The Section does not confer any new
powers on the High Court. It only saves the
inherent power which the Court possessed
before the enactment of the Code. It
envisages three circumstances under which
the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised,
namely, (i) to give effect to an order under
the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of court, and (iii) to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. It is neither
possible nor desirable to lay down any
inflexible rule which would govern the
exercise
of
inherent
jurisdiction.
No
legislative
enactment
dealing
with
procedure can provide for all cases that
may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have
inherent
powers
apart
from
express
provisions of law which are necessary for
proper discharge of functions and duties
imposed upon them by law. That is the
doctrine which finds expression in the
Section which merely recognizes and
preserves inherent powers of the High
Courts. All courts, whether civil or
criminal possess, in the absence of any
express provision, as inherent in their
constitution, all such powers as are
necessary to do the right and to undo a
wrong in course of administration of justice
on the principle quando lex aliquid alique
concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa
esse non potest (when the law gives a
person anything it gives him that without
which it cannot exist). While exercising
powers under the Section, the Court does
not function as a court of appeal or
revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the
Section though wide has to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution and
only when such exercise is justified by the
tests specifically laid down in the Section
itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae
to do real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone courts exist.
1 All. Bhupinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
443
Authority
of
the
court
exists
for
advancement of justice and if any attempt is
made to abuse that authority so as to
produce injustice, the court has power to
prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of
process of the court to allow any action
which would result in injustice and prevent
promotion of justice. In exercises of the
powers court would be justified to quash
any proceeding if it finds that initiation or
continuance of it amounts to abuse of the
process of court or quashing of these
proceedings would otherwise serve the
ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the complaint, the court may
examine the question of fact. When a
complaint is sought to be quashed, it is
permissible to look into the materials to
assess what the complainant has alleged
and whether any offence is made out even if
the allegations are accepted in toto.

6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of
Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), this Court
summarized some categories of cases
where inherent power can and should be
exercised to quash the proceedings:(AIR
p.869, para 6).

(i) where it manifestly appears
that there is a legal bar against the
institution or continuance e.g. want of
sanction;

(ii) where the allegations in the
first information report or complaint taken
at its face value and accepted in their
entirety do not constitute the offence
alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute
an offence, but there is no legal evidence
adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or
manifestly fails to prove the charge.

7. In dealing with the last
category, it is important to bear in mind the
distinction between a case where there is no
legal evidence or where there is evidence
which is clearly inconsistent with the
accusations made, and a case where there is
legal evidence which, on appreciation, may
or may not support the accusations. When
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code, the High Court would not
ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether
the evidence in question is reliable or not or
whether on a reasonable appreciation of it
accusation would not be sustained. That is
the function of the trial Judge. Judicial
process no doubt should not be an instrument
of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court
should be circumspect and judicious in
exercising discretion and should take all
relevant
facts
and
circumstances
into
consideration before issuing process, lest it
would be an instrument in the hands of a
private complainant to unleash vendetta to
harass any person needlessly. At the same
time the Section is not an instrument handed
over to an accused to short-circuit a
prosecution and bring about its sudden death.
The scope of exercise of power under Section
482 of the Code and the categories of cases
where the High Court may exercise its power
under it relating to cognizable offences to
prevent abuse of process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice were
set out in some detail by this Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC
335) A note of caution was, however, added
that the power should be exercised sparingly
and that too in rarest of rare cases. The
illustrative categories indicated by this Court
are as follows: (SCC pp.378-79 para 102)

"(1) Where the allegations made
in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 F.I.R. 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
F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable
offence
but
constitute
only
a
noncognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a Police Officer without an
order of a Magistrate as contemplated
under S. 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.

8. As noted above, the powers
possessed by the High Court under Section
482 of the Code are very wide and the very
plenitude of the power requires great
caution in its exercise. Court must be
careful to see that its decision in exercise of
this power is based on sound principles.
The inherent power should not be exercised
to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High
Court being the highest Court of a State
should normally refrain from giving a
prima facie decision in a case where the
entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more
so when the evidence has not been
collected and produced before the Court
and the issues involved, whether factual or
legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen
in their true perspective without sufficient
material. Of course, no hard and fast rule
can be laid down in regard to cases in
which the High Court will exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the
proceeding at any stage. (See : The Janata
Dal etc. v. H.S. Chowdhary and others, etc.
(AIR 1993 SC 892), Dr. Raghubir Saran v.
State of Bihar and another (AIR 1964 SC
1)). It would not be proper for the High
Court
to
analyse
the
case
of
the
complainant in the light of all probabilities
in order to determine whether a conviction
would be sustainable and on such premises,
arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings
are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to
assess the material before it and conclude
that the complaint cannot be proceeded
with. In proceeding instituted on complaint,
exercise of the inherent powers to quash
1 All. Bhupinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
445
the proceedings is called for only in a case
where the complaint does not disclose any
offence or is frivolous, vexatious or
oppressive. If the allegations set out in the
complaint do not constitute the offence of
which cognizance has been taken by the
Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to
quash the same in exercise of the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is
not, however, necessary that there should
be meticulous analysis of the case before
the trial to find out whether the case would
end in conviction or acquittal. The
complaint/F.I.R. has to be read as a whole.
If it appears that on consideration of the
allegations in the light of the statement
made on oath of the complainant or
disclosed in the F.I.R. that the ingredients
of the offence or offences are disclosed and
there is no material to show that the
complaint/F.I.R. is mala fide, frivolous or
vexatious, in that event there would be no
justification for interference by the High
Court. When an information is lodged at
the police station and an offence is
registered, then the mala fides of the
informant
would
be
of
secondary
importance. It is the material collected
during the investigation and evidence led in
Court which decides the fate of the accused
person. The allegations of mala fides
against
the
informant
are
of
no
consequence and cannot by itself be the
basis for quashing the proceeding. (See :
Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar
and others (AIR 1990 SC 494), State of
Bihar and another v. P. P. Sharma, I.A.S.
and another (1992 Suppl (1) SCC 222),
Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another v.
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another (1995
(6) SCC 194), State of Kerala and others v.
O.C. Kuttan and others (1999 (2) SCC
651), State of U.P. v. O. P. Sharma (1996
(7) SCC 705), Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v.
Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997 (2) SCC
397), Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) and another (1999 (8) SCC
728), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi
and others AIR 1999 SC 1216), State of
Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and another
(2002 (3) SCC 89)."

21. Yet again the Apex Court in the
case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, reported in
2005(1) SCC 122 observed as under:-

"11. The scope of exercise of
power under Section 482 of the Code and
the categories of cases where the High
Court may exercise its power under it
relating to cognizable offences to prevent
abuse of process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice were set out in
some detail by this Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1)
335). A note of caution was, however,
added that the power should be exercised
sparingly and that too in rarest of rare
cases. The illustrative categories indicated
by this Court are as follows: (SCC pp.37879, para 102)

"102(1) Where the allegations
made in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
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.
446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(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 Act concerned (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 Act
concerned, 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."

As noted above, the powers
possessed by the High Court under Section
482 of the Code are very wide and the very
plenitude of the power requires great
caution in its exercise. Court must be
careful to see that its decision in exercise of
this power is based on sound principles.
The inherent power should not be exercised
to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High
Court being the highest court of a State
should normally refrain from giving a
prima facie decision in a case where the
entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more
so when the evidence has not been
collected and produced before the Court
and the issues involved, whether factual or
legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen
in their true perspective without sufficient
material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule
can be laid down in regard to cases in
which the High Court will exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the
proceeding at any stage. (See: Janata Dal
v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992 (4) SCC 305),
and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar
(AIR 1964 SC 1). It would not be proper for
the High Court to analyse the case of the
complainant in the light of all probabilities
in order to determine whether a conviction
would be sustainable and on such premises
arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings
are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to
assess the material before it and conclude
that the complaint cannot be proceeded
with. In a proceeding instituted on
complaint, exercise of the inherent powers
to quash the proceedings is called for only
in a case where the complaint does not
disclose any offence or is frivolous,
vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations
set out in the complaint do not constitute
the offence of which cognizance has been
taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the
High Court to quash the same in exercise
of the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code. It is not, however, necessary that
there should be meticulous analysis of the
case before the trial to find out whether the
case would end in conviction or acquittal.
The complaint has to be read as a whole. If
1 All. Lot Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
447
it appears that on consideration of the
allegations in the light of the statement
made on oath of the complainant that the
ingredients of the offence or offences are
disclosed and there is no material to show
that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or
vexatious, in that event there would be no
justification for interference by the High
Court. When an information is lodged at
the police station and an offence is
registered, then the mala fides of the
informant
would
be
of
secondary
importance. It is the material collected
during the investigation and evidence led in
court which decides the fate of the accused
person. The allegations of mala fides
against
the
informant
are
of
no
consequence and cannot by themselves be
the basis for quashing the proceedings.
(See: Dhanalakshmi vs. R. Prasanna
Kumar (1990 Supp SCC 686), State of
Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (AIR 1996 SC 309),
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh
Gill (1995 (6) SCC 194), State of Kerala v.
O.C. Kuttan (AIR 1999 SC 1044), State of
U.P. v. O.P. Sharma (1996 (7) SCC 705),
Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada
(1997 (2) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (AIR 1996 SC
2983) and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of
Delhi."

22. In view of the above, and for the
reasons stated above, the Court is of the
considered opinion that the continuation of
the criminal proceedings against the
applicants is an abuse of process of the
Court and ends of justice requires that the
said proceedings be quashed.

23. Consequently, invoking the
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
the
entire
criminal
proceedings
of
Complaint Case No.4859 of 2002 (Deep
Chand
Vs.
Bhupendra
&
others)
(Renumbered as 91 of 2007) under
Sections 506, 386 IPC, Police Station
Turkpatti, District Kushinagar pending
before the 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Jr.
Division)/ Judicial magistrate, Kasaya,
Kushinagar is hereby quashed.

24. The application stands allowed.
----------
(2022)01ILR A447
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 423 of 1995

Lot Prasad ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
I.B. Singh, Janardhan Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Kapil Kumar Bhargava, Neeraj Kumar
Tiwari,
S.K.
Singh
Kalhans,
Shikha
Srivastava, Vijat Kr. Tiwari

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302/34 - Session Judge acquitted
three co-accused-convicted Appellant u/s
302/34 IPC-Ante -mortem injuries shows
injuries of laathi and danda have not been
found on the person of deceased as alleged
in the FIR-no attempt made by the
informant & ors. family member-to save the
deceased-cast doubt upon prosecution caseenmity
on
record-possibility
of
false
implication cannot be ruled out. All other coaccused acquitted giving benefit of doubtAppellant entitled for benefit of doubt.

Appeal allowed. (E-9)