# Chandrakesh Bhardwaj v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 909
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 11944 of 2024
- **Bench:** Jitendra Kumar Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandrakesh-bhardwaj-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53787
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Deepak Upadhyay, G.A., Sarvesh Kumar
Mishra

Issue for Consideration
The appellant has been summoned to face
the
trial
u/s
204
Cr.PC-The
appellant
contended that the subsequent prosecution
was barred because a prior case had already
been registered against him and the coaccused on identical facts.

Headnotes
A. Criminal matter-Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities
Ac),1989-Section 14-A(1), 3(2)5-Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 406, 420, 467,
468,
471,
120-B,
506-Civil
dispute
Vs.Criminality-The allegations primarily
concerning the non-return of earnest
money, related to civil dispute for which a
civil remedy exists, and giving it the
"colour of criminality" amounts to abuseThe court concluded that the criminal
proceedings were manifestly attended
with mala fide and were not sustainableAppeal allowed.
Held
The court found that the complaint was lodged
with the intent and purpose of putting pressure
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on the appellant to return the earnest moneyThe court recognized that for an offence to fall
under the SC/ST Act, it is not sufficient that the
offence was committed against the member of
the SC community, it must be proven that the
offense was committed only because the victim
was a member of the SC/ST communityApplying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex court in Mohd. Wajid and Pradeep Kumar
Kesarwani, the Court, determined that a careful
examination of the allegations and attending
circumstances
demonstrated
the
frivolous
nature of the proceedings. (Para 9 to 23) (E-6)

Case law Cited
T.T.Antony Vs State of Kerala & Ors (2001) 6
SCC 181, Inder Mohan Goswami & State of
Uttaranchal & Ors (2007) 12 SCC 1, Hon'ble
Apex Court in Indian Oil Corpn, Vs NEPC India
LTD. & Ors (2006) 6 SCC 736, Mohd. Wajid &
Anr Vs State of U.P. & Ors. (2023) 20 SCC 219,
Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs State of U.P. &
Anr.
2025
(4)
RCR
(Criminal)
119,
S.N.Vijayalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka, 2025
INSC (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 758), Paramjeet Batra
Vs State of Uttarakhan, (2013) 11 SCC 673,C.
Subbiah @ Kadambur Jayaraj & Ors Vs The
Superintendent of Police & Ors, 2024 INSC 416referred to.

List of Acts
Scheduled
Castes
&
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, Indian
Penal Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Color of criminality, SC/ST Act, weight of
evidence, commission of offence, credible
evidence, forgery, complainant, co-accused,
abuse
of
process,
argument,
allegation,
summoned, face trial, 'Chamari Chamatti',
refund of money, earnest money.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11944 of 2024
From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
26.09.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.
Chandrakesh Bhardwaj Vs. State of U.P.&
Anr

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Appellant(s)
R.P.S. Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent(s)
Deepak Upadhyay,G.A.,Sarvesh Kumar Mishra

## Text

9 All. Chandrakesh Bhardwaj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
909
expedient in the interest of justice"
that an enquiry should be made and a
complaint is to be filed.

17. Therefore, from the above
discussion, it is clear that proceeding u/s
340 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 379
BNSS) is neither criminal nor civil but can
be termed as quasi-criminal.

18. It is clear from the above
analysis that an appeal arising from an
order issued under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
(corresponding to Section 379 BNSS) by
the Family Court should be filed in
accordance with Section 19 of the Act of
1984, specifically before the Division
Bench of the High Court. Section 19
clearly does not preclude the appeal
procedures outlined in Section 341
Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 380
BNSS) instead, it establishes a definitive
forum and procedural framework for
such appeals, directing them to the
Division Bench of the High Court.

19. Furthermore, it is critical to
recognize that an appeal against an order
issued under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by the
Family Court is not appropriate in a
criminal court setting. Instead, it must be
duly submitted under Section 19 of the Act
of 1984 to the Division Bench of the High
Court, following the procedural guidelines
and limitations prescribed therein. This
clarification serves to eliminate any
ambiguity regarding the proper channel
for pursuing such appeals.

20. In view of the above, the
present appeal is not maintainable before
this Court.

21. Accordingly, the present appeal
is rejected with liberty to the appellant to
file an appeal u/s 19 of the Act, 1984,
before the appropriate Bench.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 909
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 11944 of 2024

Chandrakesh Bhardwaj ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
R.P.S. Chauhan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Deepak Upadhyay, G.A., Sarvesh Kumar
Mishra

Issue for Consideration
The appellant has been summoned to face
the
trial
u/s
204
Cr.PC-The
appellant
contended that the subsequent prosecution
was barred because a prior case had already
been registered against him and the coaccused on identical facts.

Headnotes
A. Criminal matter-Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities
Ac),1989-Section 14-A(1), 3(2)5-Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 406, 420, 467,
468,
471,
120-B,
506-Civil
dispute
Vs.Criminality-The allegations primarily
concerning the non-return of earnest
money, related to civil dispute for which a
civil remedy exists, and giving it the
"colour of criminality" amounts to abuseThe court concluded that the criminal
proceedings were manifestly attended
with mala fide and were not sustainableAppeal allowed.
Held
The court found that the complaint was lodged
with the intent and purpose of putting pressure
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on the appellant to return the earnest moneyThe court recognized that for an offence to fall
under the SC/ST Act, it is not sufficient that the
offence was committed against the member of
the SC community, it must be proven that the
offense was committed only because the victim
was a member of the SC/ST communityApplying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex court in Mohd. Wajid and Pradeep Kumar
Kesarwani, the Court, determined that a careful
examination of the allegations and attending
circumstances
demonstrated
the
frivolous
nature of the proceedings. (Para 9 to 23) (E-6)

Case law Cited
T.T.Antony Vs State of Kerala & Ors (2001) 6
SCC 181, Inder Mohan Goswami & State of
Uttaranchal & Ors (2007) 12 SCC 1, Hon'ble
Apex Court in Indian Oil Corpn, Vs NEPC India
LTD. & Ors (2006) 6 SCC 736, Mohd. Wajid &
Anr Vs State of U.P. & Ors. (2023) 20 SCC 219,
Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs State of U.P. &
Anr.
2025
(4)
RCR
(Criminal)
119,
S.N.Vijayalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka, 2025
INSC (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 758), Paramjeet Batra
Vs State of Uttarakhan, (2013) 11 SCC 673,C.
Subbiah @ Kadambur Jayaraj & Ors Vs The
Superintendent of Police & Ors, 2024 INSC 416referred to.

List of Acts
Scheduled
Castes
&
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, Indian
Penal Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Color of criminality, SC/ST Act, weight of
evidence, commission of offence, credible
evidence, forgery, complainant, co-accused,
abuse
of
process,
argument,
allegation,
summoned, face trial, 'Chamari Chamatti',
refund of money, earnest money.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11944 of 2024
From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
26.09.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.
Chandrakesh Bhardwaj Vs. State of U.P.&
Anr

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Appellant(s)
R.P.S. Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent(s)
Deepak Upadhyay,G.A.,Sarvesh Kumar Mishra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar
Sinha, J.)

1. Heard Mr. R.P.S. Chauhan, learned
counsel for the appellant, Mr. Deepak
Upadhyaya,
learned
counsel
for
the
opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Rahul
Asthana, learned AGA appearing for the
State respondents.

2. The appellant has preferred this
appeal under Section 14A(1) of S.C./S.T.
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
challenging the order dated 23.7.2024
passed by the learned Special Judge
(SC/ST Act), Meerut in Complaint No. 26
of 2023 (Smt. Amarwati vs. Chandrakesh
Bhardwaj and another), under Sections 406,
420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 IPC and
Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station
Kankarkheda, District Meerut.

3.
The
appellant
herein
Chandrakesh
Bhardwaj
has
been
summoned to face trial under Section 204
of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter
referred to as the ?CrPC?) for the offences
under the aforesaid sections. The appellant
has preferred this appeal on the grounds
that the order impugned passed by the
learned trial Court is arbitrary and against
the provisions of law and the same is
against the weight of evidence. The
appellant has also taken the ground that
there was no motive on the part of him to
commit the alleged offence and there is no
credible
evidence
against
him
for
commission of the said offence. Further,
the grounds have been taken that there are
major discrepancies in the prosecution
story and no caste insulting words were
9 All. Chandrakesh Bhardwaj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
911
allegedly used by the appellant to the
informant and the injured and there is a
delay of six months and 27 days in lodging
the complaint.

4. The facts in brief is that the an
application under Section 156(3) was filed
by the opposite party no. 2-Smt. Amarwati
against the appellant and co-accused
Bijendra, which was treated as a complaint
case by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST
Act), Meerut bearing Complaint No. 26 of
2023 (Smt. Amarwati vs. Chandrakesh
Bhardwaj and another) alleging therein that
the complainant i.e. opposite party no. 2
herein is a housewife and does labour work
to support her and her family members.
One Chandrakesh Bhardwaj (appellant
herein) is a clever person who induced her
husband Omveer to execute the sale deed
of his plot, which was situated at Medical,
Garh Road, Meerut through brokers and in
its place some other plot was shown to her
at Mansha Devi Road, Aurangshahpur
Diggi, Garh Road, Meerut. It is further
alleged that the appellant introduced the
complainant to co-accused Bijendra and by
making false promise persuaded her to
purchase a plot from co-accused Bijendra.
The appellant and the co-accused Bijendra
shared the amount received from the
complainant and out of Rs. 5,00,000/-, Rs.
1,50,000/- was taken by the appellant and
the remaining Rs. 3,50,000/- was taken by
co-accused Bijendra. It is also alleged that
on 30.1.2021 the appellant and the coaccused Bijendra by committing forgery
executed a forged document showing the
same to be a sale deed and deceived her by
taking consideration money. When the
complainant came to know that no sale
deed has been executed, she asked the
appellant and the co-accused to return the
money received by them to her but they
indulged in dilly-dallying and they took her
to the forest where they committed rape on
her after giving threats and they also used
abusive language and caste name like
?Chamari Chamatti?. It is further alleged
that the complainant approached the police
for registration of the first information
report but the same was not registered and
thereafter she filed instant complaint.

5. The learned Special Judge
recorded the statement of the victim i.e.
opposite party no. 2 under Section 200
CrPC and other witnesses i.e. Brahmpal
and Syad Mohammad under Section 202
CrPC wherein they have supported the
allegation and after hearing the argument of
the complainant passed the order impugned
and summoned the appellant and coaccused Bijendra to face trial under
Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B,
506 IPC and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act.

6. It is contended by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the present
prosecution is an abuse of process of the
Court. It is further submitted that the
complainant has earlier filed an application
under Section 156(3) CrPC bearing No.
875 of 2022 against the appellant and the
co-accused Bijendra for the allegation
under Sections 376, 420, 467, 468, 471,
120B, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10)
SC/ST Act alleging the same facts as
contained in the instant complaint, in
which, by order of the learned Magistrate, a
first information report under Sections 323,
504, 506 and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act
was registered. Learned counsel for the
appellant submits that two FIRs cannot be
lodged for the same offence and subsequent
prosecution is barred in view of the law
laid down by Hon?ble Apex Court in T.T.
Antony vs. State of Kerala and others,
(2001) 6 SCC 181. It is further submitted
that from bare reading of the allegation in
912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the application under Section 156(3) CrPC,
the matter relates to some civil dispute and
it has been given the colour of criminality.
It is further submitted that the delay of six
months and 27 days in filing the complaint
is itself a circumstance, which raises doubt
on the veracity of the allegation. It is also
submitted that the learned Special Judge
has not found the allegation of rape to be
true and has not summoned the appellant to
face trial under Section 376 IPC. It is also
submitted that the learned Special Judge
erred in exercising the jurisdiction and no
offence under SC/ST Act is made out as
nowhere it is alleged in the complaint that
the appellant committed the offence simply
on the ground that the opposite party no. 2
was a member of SC/ST community.
Learned counsel for the appellant has
referred to the various provisions of SC/ST
Act and submitted that simply the offence
committed against a member of SC
community does not amount to an offence
under SC/ST Act but for brining the
offence under the purview of SC/ST Act it
is the intention to commit the offence only
because the victim is a member of SC/ST
community. Learned counsel for the
appellant
has
placed
reliance
on
a
judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered
in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and
another vs. State of Uttaranchal and
others, (2007) 12 SCC 1. In view of the
above, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that learned Special Judge has
failed to appreciate the facts in right
perspective and has erred in summoning
the appellant to face trial.

7. On the other hand, Sri Deepak
Upadhyay, learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 submits that from the averments
of the complaint a cognizable offence is
disclosed and the learned Special Judge has
rightly passed the order impugned herein. It
is submitted that the complaint discloses an
offence of criminal breach of trust and
commission of forgery by the appellant and
co-accused and also offences under the
SC/ST Act are also disclosed. It is further
submitted that the date of commission of
offence in the first prosecution is not the
same as the date of commission of the
offence in the instant case, therefore,
present prosecution cannot be a bar in view
of the earlier case filed by the opposite
party no. 2 against the appellant. It is also
submitted that from bare reading of the
complaint if there is element of criminality,
the criminal law can be set in motion even
if the facts disclose civil dispute. In support
of his arguments, he has placed reliance on
a judgement of Hon?ble Apex Court
rendered in Hon'ble Apex Court in
Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC India LTD.
And others, (2006) 6 SCC 736.

8. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties.

9. The opposite party no. 2
(complainant) earlier filed an application
under
Section
156(3)
CrPC
bearing
Application No. 875 of 2022 stating therein
that the applicant induced her to sell her
plot at Medical, Garh Road, Meerut and in
its place he had shown another plot of
Mansha Devi Road, Aurangshahpur Diggi,
Garh Road, Meerut. She has further stated
that by giving false promise he induced her
to enter into agreement with the owner of
the second plot Bijendra. It is further
submitted that the appellant Chandrakesh
Bhardwaj herein and co-accused Bijendra
got the consideration money, which was
received by the complainant from the sale
of first plot and the appellant retained Rs.
1,50,000/- with him and remaining Rs.
3,50,000/-
was
given
to
co-accused
9 All. Chandrakesh Bhardwaj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
913
Bijendra. It is further submitted by her that
when no sale deed was executed by the coaccused Bijendra, then the complainant
asked for return of the amount, which was
not given to her by the appellant and coaccused. When she repeated her request for
refund of the money, the appellant and the
co-accused Bijendra used caste language
and insulted her. On the basis of the above
application under Section 156(3) CrPC, a
case was registered on 12.7.2023 under
Sections 320, 504, 506 IPC and Section
3(2)(va) SC/ST Act. After investigation, a
chargesheet was submitted and cognizance
of the said offence was taken by the Special
Judge vide order dated 14.9.2023.

10. Present prosecution has been
lodged by filing a complaint dated 6.2.2023
by the opposite party no. 2 (complainant)
stating therein the identical facts with
addition that she has stated that on
10.7.2022 the appellant and co-accused
took
the
victim
to
the
forest
of
Kankarkheda on the pretext of refunding
her money and committed repeated rape on
her and threatened her that if she disclosed
any one about the incident, her son and she
would be killed. The complainant has
further stated that she made request for
refund of money, but the same was not
returned to her and she was abused by
using caste name and was threatened by the
appellant and co-accused Bijendra. The
said application under Section 156(3) CrPC
was dismissed vide order dated 14.3.2023
by the learned Special Judge, against which
the opposite party no. 2 approached this
Court and this Court vide order dated
21.8.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.
3552 of 2023 (Amarvati vs. State of UP
and 2 others) remanded the matter back to
the
Special
Judge
to
consider
her
application under Section 156(3) CrPC
afresh.
11. On remand by this Court,
learned
Special
Judge
treated
the
application under Section 156(3) CrPC as a
complaint case and after examining the
complainant under Section 200 CrPC and
the
witnesses
Brahmpal
and
Syad
Mohammad under Section 202 CrPC,
impugned order has been passed on
23.7.2024 whereby learned Special Judge
has summoned the appellant Chandrakesh
Bhardwaj and co-accused Bijendra to face
the trial under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,
471, 120-B, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5
SC/ST Act.

12. Present appeal has been filed
under Section 14(A) of the SC/ST Act,
which reads as under:

 Section 14(A)

 "14A.
Appeals-
(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974), an appeal shall lie, from any
judgment, sentence or order, not being an
interlocutory order, of a Special Court or
an Exclusive Special Court, to the High
Court both on facts and on law.

 (2)
Notwithstanding,
anything
contained in sub-section (3) of section 378
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2
of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High
Court against an order of the Special Court
or the Exclusive Special Court granting or
refusing bail.

 (3)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any other law for the time
being in force, every appeal under this
section shall be preferred within a period
of ninety days from the date of the
judgement, sentence or order appealed
from:
914 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 Provided that the High Court
may entertain an appeal after the expiry of
the said period of ninety days if it is
satisfied that the appellant had sufficient
cause for not preferring the appeal within
the period of ninety days:

 Provided further that no appeal
shall be entertained after the expiry of the
period of one hundred and eighty days.

 (4) Every appeal preferred under
sub-section (1) shall, as far as possible, be
disposed of within a period of three months
from the date of admission of the appeal."

13. From perusal of the above
provisions, it is clear that any order passed
under the SC/ST Act can be challenged
before the High Court by filing an appeal
both on facts and on law. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Wajid
and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others, (2023) 20 SCC 219 has held as
under:

 "33.
In
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case and more
particularly, considering the nature of the
allegations levelled in the FIR, a prima
facie case to constitute the offence
punishable under Section 506 IPC may
probably could be said to have been
disclosed but not under Section 504 IPC.
The allegations with respect to the offence
punishable under Section 504 IPC can also
be looked at from a different perspective. In
the FIR, all that the first informant has
stated is that abusive language was used by
the accused persons. What exactly was
uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in
the FIR.

 34. One of the essential elements,
as discussed above, constituting an offence
under Section 504 IPC is that there should
have been an act or conduct amounting to
intentional insult. Where that act is the use
of the abusive words, it is necessary to
know what those words were in order to
decide whether the use of those words
amounted to intentional insult. In the
absence of these words, it is not possible to
decide whether the ingredient of intentional
insult is present.
 35. However, as observed earlier, the
entire case put up by the first informant on the
face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated.
At this stage, we may refer to the parameters laid
down by this Court for quashing of an FIR in
Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 :
AIR 1992 SC 604] . The parameters are : (SCC
pp. 378-79, para 102)

 "102. ? (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
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
9 All. Chandrakesh Bhardwaj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
915
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 the 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.?

 In our opinion, the present case
falls within Parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7,
respectively, referred to above.

 36. At this stage, we would like to
observe something important. Whenever an
accused comes before the Court invoking
either the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed
essentially on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance, then in
such circumstances the Court owes a duty
to look into the FIR with care and a little
more closely.
37. We say so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance, etc. then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is
very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure
that
the
averments
made
in
the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose
the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be
just enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint alone
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not.

 38. In frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look
into many other attending circumstances
emerging from the record of the case over
and above the averments and, if need be,
with due care and circumspection try to
read in between the lines. The Court while
exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482CrPC
or
Article
226
of
the
Constitution need not restrict itself only
to the stage of a case but is empowered to
take
into
account
the
overall
circumstances
leading
to
the
initiation/registration of the case as well
as the materials collected in the course of
investigation. Take for instance the case
on hand. Multiple FIRs have been
registered over a period of time. It is in
the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes
importance, thereby attracting the issue
of wreaking vengeance out of private or
personal grudge as alleged.
916 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 39. In State of A.P. v. Golconda
Linga Swamy [State of A.P. v. Golconda
Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 : 2004
SCC (Cri) 1805] , a two-Judge Bench of
this Court elaborated on the types of
materials the High Court can assess to
quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine
distinction
between
consideration
of
materials that were tendered as evidence
and appreciation of such evidence. Only
such material that manifestly fails to prove
the accusation in the FIR can be
considered for quashing an FIR. The Court
held : (SCC pp. 526-27, paras 5-7)

 "5. ? 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 the process of the court to allow any
action which would result in injustice and
prevent promotion of justice. In exercise 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 [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab,
1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC
866] , this Court summarised some
categories of cases where inherent power
can and should be exercised to quash the
proceedings : (SCC OnLine SC 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
9 All. Chandrakesh Bhardwaj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
917
a prosecution and bring about its sudden
death."

14. On perusal of the principles
laid down in the above judgement, it is
amply clear that when an application is
filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing
the criminal proceedings, the Court must
look consciously and carefully to the
allegations made in the first information
report
as
well
as
the
attending
circumstances.

15.
Similar
view
has
been
reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
latest judgement rendered in the case of
Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025(4)
RCR (Criminal) 119, paragraphs 16 to 20
and 23 whereof are quoted as under:

 "16. It is by now well settled that
summoning any person on the basis of a
frivolous
or
vexatious
complaint
is
something very serious. This would tarnish
the image of the person against whom
false, frivolous and vexatious allegations
are levelled.

 17. The duty of the court in cases
where an accused seeks quashing of an FIR
or proceedings on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly frivolous, or
vexatious, or instituted with an ulterior
motive
for
wreaking
vengeance
was
delineated by this Court in Mohammad
Wajid v. State of U.P., reported as 2023
SCC OnLine SC 951. We may refer to the
following observations:

 "34. At this stage, we would like
to observe something important. Whenever
an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure
(CrPC)
or
extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal
proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground
that
such
proceedings
are
manifestly
frivolous
or
vexatious
or
instituted with the ulterior motive for
wreaking
vengeance,
then
in
such
circumstances the Court owes a duty to
look into the FIR with care and a little
more closely. We say so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is
very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure
that
the
averments
made
in
the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose
the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be
just enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint alone
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not. In
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the
Court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the
record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection try to read in between
the lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC
or Article 226 of the Constitution need not
restrict itself only to the stage of a case but
is empowered to take into account the
overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as
the materials collected in the course of
investigation. Take for instance the case on
hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered
over a period of time. It is in the
background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes
918 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
importance, thereby attracting the issue of
wreaking vengeance out of private or
personal grudge as alleged.? (Emphasis
supplied)

 18. There is a clear distinction
between rape and consensual sex and in a
case where there is a promise of marriage,
the Court must very carefully examine
whether the accused had actually wanted to
marry the victim, or had mala fide motives
and had made a false promise to this effect
only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls in
the ambit of cheating or deception.

 19. In the aforesaid context, we
may refer to and rely upon the decision of
this Court in the case of Deepak Gulati Vs.
State of Haryana reported in 2013
Criminal Law Journal 2990. This Court
made the following observations:

 "18. Consent may be express or
implied, coerced or misguided, obtained
willingly or through deceit. Consent is an
act
of
reason,
accompanied
by
deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a
balance, the good and evil on each side.
There is a clear distinction between rape
and consensual sex and in a case like this,
the court must very carefully examine
whether the accused had actually wanted to
marry the victim, or had mala fide motives,
and had made a false promise to this effect
only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls
within a ambit of cheating or deception.
There is a distinction between the mere
breach of a promise,and not fulfilling a
false promise. Thus, the court must
examine whether there was made, at an
early stage a false promise of marriage by
the accuse; and whether the consent
involved
was
given
after
wholly,
understanding
the
nature
and
consequences of sexual indulgence. There
may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees
to have sexual intercourse on account of
her love and passion for the accused, and
not solely on account of mis-representation
made to her by the accused, or where an
accused on account of circumstances which
he could not have foreseen, of which were
beyond his control, was unable to marry
her, despite having every intention to do so.
Such cases must be treated differently. An
accused can be convicted for rape only if
the court reaches a conclusion that the
intention of the accused was male fide, and
that he had clandestine motives.

 21. Hence, it is evident that there
must be adequate evidence to show that at
the relevant time, i.e. at initial stage itself,
the accused had no intention whatsoever, of
keeping his promise to marry the victim.
There may, of course, be circumstances,
when a person having the best of intentions
is unable to marry the victim owing to
various unavoidable circumstances. The
?failure to keep a promise made with
respect to a future uncertain date, due to
reasons that are not very clear from the
evidence
available,
does
not
always
amount to misconception of fact. In order
to come within the meaning of the term
misconception of fact, the fact, the fact
must have an immediate relevance.?
Section 90, IPC cannot be called into aid in
such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl
in entirety, and fasten criminal liability on
the other, unless the court is assured of the
fact that from the very beginning, the
accused had never really intended to marry
her.? (Emphasis supplied)

 20. The following steps should
ordinarily determine the veracity of a
prayer for quashing, raised by an accused
by invoking the power vested in the High
Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
9 All. Chandrakesh Bhardwaj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
919
 (i)Step one, whether the material
relied upon by the accused is sound,
reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the
materials is of sterling and impeccable
quality"

 (ii)
Step
two,
whether
the
material relied upon by the accused, would
rule out the assertions contained in the
charges levelled against the accused, i.e.,
the material is sufficient to reject and
overrule the factual assertions contained in
the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as
would persuade a reasonable person to
dismiss and condemn the factual basis of
the accusations as false.

 (iii) Step three, whether the
material relied upon by the accused, has
not
been
refuted
by
the
prosecution/complainant;
and/or
the
material is such, that it cannot be
justifiably
refuted
by
the
prosecution/complainant?

 (iv)
Step
four,
whether
proceeding with the trial would result in an
abuse of process of the court, and would
not serve the ends of justice?

 If the answer to all the steps is in
the affirmative, judicial conscience of the
High Court should persuade it to quash
such criminal ? proceedings, in exercise of
power vested in it under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides
doing justice to the accused, would save
precious court time, which would otherwise
be wasted in holding such a trial (as well
as,
proceedings
arising
therefrom)
specially when, it is clear that the same
would not conclude in the conviction of the
accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v.
Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No.
174 of 2013)]
 21...

 22.....

 23. In such circumstances, the
High Court should have exercised its
inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code
for
quashing of
the
criminal
proceedings."

16. From perusal of the averments
made in Misc. Application no. 875 of 2022
the application filed under Section 156(3)
CrPC
and
present
prosecution,
the
averments are almost identical except that
in the present prosecution, additional
allegation of rape has been levelled against
the appellant, however, the learned Special
Judge has not found the said allegation true
and has not summoned the appellant to face
trial for the offence of rape.

17. In view of the principles laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd
Wazid
(supra)
and
Pradeep
Kumar
Kesarwani (supra), the Court is enjoined to
look into the allegations carefully and also
look into the attending circumstances.

18. On the above premise, crux of
the allegation against the appellant is that
the appellant and co-accused have not
returned the earnest money received by
them and the opposite party no. 2
(complainant) has filed earlier prosecution
as well as the present prosecution to realize
and recover the said amount from the
appellant and the co-accused. Though the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the above two judgements relates
to Section 482 CrPC but so far as the
offences
under
the
SC/ST
Act
are
concerned, the only provision which
provides to challenge any order is by way
of filing an appeal under Section 14(A) of
920 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
SC/ST Act,
therefore,
the
principles
enunciated in the above judgements will
apply to the proceedings under Section
14(A) of SC/ST Act.

19. Further, it is also pertinent to
mention that present prosecution has been
lodged after a delay of more than six
months and as per prosecution version, the
victim (opposite party no. 2) continued to
make repeated request to the appellant and
the co-accused Bijendra to return the
earnest money even after the incident of
rape and abuse by using the caste name was
committed with her on 10.7.2022.

20. In view of the above, present
prosecution is nothing but an abuse of
process of the Court as it has been lodged
with the intent and purpose of putting
pressure on the appellant to return the
earnest money received by him. The refund
of earnest money is a civil dispute for
which civil remedy lies.

21. The Hon?ble Supreme Court
in
the
latest
judgement
of
S.N.
Vijayalakshmi vs. State of Karnataka,
2025 INSC 917 (2025 LiveLaw (SC)
758) has held that where the allegation
purely reflects civil dispute, no criminal
prosecution can be initiated on its basis.
Similar view has been expressed by
Hon?ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet
Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2013)
11 SCC 673 and in C. Subbiah @
Kadambur Jayaraj and Ors. Vs. The
Superintendent of Police and Ors.,
2024 INSC 416. Already the appellant
and the co-accused are facing a criminal
case on identical facts filed by the
opposite party no. 2. It is also wroth to
note that the present prosecution has been
lodged after a delay of more than six
months, which raises question on the
intent and purpose of filing the present
prosecution

22. In view of the principles laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mohd Wazid (supra) and Pradeep Kumar
Kesarwani (supra) by carefully going
through the allegation in the instant
complaint and the attending facts and
circumstances
of
the
case,
entire
proceedings are liable to quashed against
the appellant herein and the appeal is
liable to be allowed.

23. Accordingly, present appeal
stands allowed. The impugned order
dated 23.7.2024 passed by the learned
Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut in
Complaint
No.
26
of
2023
(Smt.
Amarwati vs. Chandrakesh Bhardwaj and
another), under Sections 406, 420, 467,
468, 471, 120-B, 506 IPC and Section
3(2)5
SC/ST
Act,
Police
Station
Kankarkheda, District Meerut are hereby
set aside against the appellant herein.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 920
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 21 of 2023

Smt. Shikha Agarwal ...Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Garg (Deceased) & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Anshul
Kumar
Singhal,
Vinod
Kumar
Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents: