# Kunal Shah & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties 1250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1249
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-31
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 28290 of 2019
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kunal-shah-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-1250-indian-law-reports-allahabad-50874
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 165(3) & 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 504, 506
& 427 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- Sections 3(2)(va) - Application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Summoning
Order and Criminal Proceedings - Tenancy
dispute arose between the parties, which was
amicably resolved through compromise decrees
- tenant failed to vacate the premises -
execution proceedings - police-assisted in
eviction - criminal complaint, filed after an
unexplained delay - alleging offences under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and Section
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act - summoning order -
Applicant taken plea that the complaint lacked
merits and was a retaliatory measure stemming
from the civil dispute - During the pendency of
the present application, the complainant filed a
withdrawal application before the trial court -
court finds that admittedly, the complaint was
rooted in the tenancy conflict and expressing a
clear intent not to pursue the matter further -
further, court, relying on settled judicial
precedents, reiterated that the provisions of the
SC/ST Act are attracted only when the alleged
offence is committed on account of the victim's
caste, and since the present matter was purely
a
tenancy
dispute
with
no
caste-based
allegations, no case was made out under the
SC/ST Act - Held - The criminal proceedings
initiated against the applicants were found to be
an abuse of process and devoid of merit -
accordingly, the summoning order and all
related
proceedings
in
Complaint
Case,
renumbered as quashed - application stands
allowed.
(Para - 10, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

## Text

2 All. Kunal Shah & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1249
made only on the mere asking by the public
prosecutor, the court has to be satisfied on
the material placed before it that the grant
of which subserved the administration of
justice. As the matter relates to mass
agitation launched by the farmer as is
disclosed in the application made by the
public prosecutor, the court is expected in
such situation to make an effort to elicit the
reasons for withdrawal and satisfied itself
that the prosecutor too was satisfied that he
should withdraw from the prosecution for
good and relevant reasons. Withdrawal as
initiated by the government cannot be held
to vitiate the application so long as the
public
prosecutor
had
independently
applied his mind. The court in deciding to
grant consent to withdraw the prosecution
must restrict itself to only determining if
the public prosecutor has exercised the
power for the legitimate reasons. All the
court has to see is whether the application
is made in good faith, in the interest of
public policy and justice and not to thwart
or stifle the process of court. The court
after considering these facets of the case
will have to see whether the application
suffers
from
such
improperties
or
illegalities as to cause manifest injustice if
the consent is given. The judicial function
implicit
in
the
exercise
of
judicial
discretion for grant of consent would
normaly mean that the court has to satisfy
itself that the executive function of the
public prosecutor has not been improperly
exercised or that it is not an attempt to
interfere with the normal course of justice
for the illegitimate reason and purposes. In
this case on the reading of the application
for withdrawal, the impugned order and the
other attendant circumstances, this Court
has no hesitation to hold that the learned
court has not considered and recorded his
satisfaction whether the application made
by the public prosecutor was in good faith
and after having applied his independent
mind to the facts and circumstances of the
case and whether the application suffers
from any improprieties or illegalities as to
cause manifest injustice if the consent is
given
specifically
in
view
of
the
applications moved in other cases have
been allowed and consent has been granted
to withdraw the prosecution.

8. Keeping in view the entire facts
and circumstances of the case and the
manner in which the application under
Section 321 Cr.P.C. has been considered
and decided by the trial court, it is apparent
that the order has been passed against the
principles of law as stated above, which is
not sustainable in the eye of law and the
impugned order is liable to be set aside
with the direction to the court concerned
that after giving opportunity to both sides,
matter shall be decided afresh.

9. In view of the such facts and
circumstances of the case, the impugned
order
dated
22.05.2023
passed
by
ADJ/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Court No.13,
Agra is hereby set aside.

10.

Accordingly,
the
instant
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1249
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 28290 of 2019

Kunal Shah & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties
1250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Rizwan Ahamad, Sri Rajrshi Gupta

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Sri Sanjay
Mishra

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 165(3) & 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 504, 506
& 427 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- Sections 3(2)(va) - Application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Summoning
Order and Criminal Proceedings - Tenancy
dispute arose between the parties, which was
amicably resolved through compromise decrees
- tenant failed to vacate the premises -
execution proceedings - police-assisted in
eviction - criminal complaint, filed after an
unexplained delay - alleging offences under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and Section
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act - summoning order -
Applicant taken plea that the complaint lacked
merits and was a retaliatory measure stemming
from the civil dispute - During the pendency of
the present application, the complainant filed a
withdrawal application before the trial court -
court finds that admittedly, the complaint was
rooted in the tenancy conflict and expressing a
clear intent not to pursue the matter further -
further, court, relying on settled judicial
precedents, reiterated that the provisions of the
SC/ST Act are attracted only when the alleged
offence is committed on account of the victim's
caste, and since the present matter was purely
a
tenancy
dispute
with
no
caste-based
allegations, no case was made out under the
SC/ST Act - Held - The criminal proceedings
initiated against the applicants were found to be
an abuse of process and devoid of merit -
accordingly, the summoning order and all
related
proceedings
in
Complaint
Case,
renumbered as quashed - application stands
allowed.
(Para - 10, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. Kishan Singh Vs Gurpal Singh - AIR 2010 SC
3624,
2. Indian Oil Corporation Vs NEPC India Ltd. -
(2006) 6 SCC 736,

3. Usha Chakraborty Vs St. of W.B.- 2023 SCC
Online SC 90,

4. Ramawatar Vs St. of M.P. - (2022) 13 SCC
635,

5.
B.
Venkateshwaran
&
ors.

Vs
P.
Bakthavatchalam - AIR 2023 SC 262,

6. Hitesh Verma Vs St. of Uttarakhand - 2021
Cri. L.J.1,

7. Ashrafi Vs St. of U.P.- (2018) 1 SCC 742,

8. Khuman Singh Vs St. of M.P. - AIR 2019 SC
4030.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

Civil Misc. Amendment Application
No. 7 of 2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that during the pendency of
application, trial Court has renumbered the
Complaint Case No. 171 of 2017 (Jai
Kumar Harijan vs. Kunal Shah and others)
as Sessions Case No. 1506 of 2023 (State
of U.P. vs. Kunal Shah and others),
therefore, he may be permitted to carry out
necessary amendment in the prayer clause
and further requested that same may be
allowed, for which Sri Awadhesh Kumar
Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 has no objection.

3.

Amendment
Application
is
allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants
is permitted to carry out necessary
amendment during the course of day.
2 All. Kunal Shah & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1251

Order on the memo of application

1. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned
counsel for the applicants, learned AGA
and Sri Awadesh Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. Present application has been filed
for quashing of the summoning order dated
18.5.2019 as well as entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 171 of 2017 (Jai
Kumar Harijan vs. Kunal Shah and others)
renumbered as Sessions Case No. 1506 of
2023 (State of U.P. vs. Kunal Shah and
others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427
IPC and Section 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act,
pending in the court of Special Judge
SC/ST, Allahabad.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
opposite party no.2 was tenant of applicant
no.1 and there was tenancy dispute between
the parties. Applicant no.1 has filed S.C.C.
Suit No. 11 of 2014 for eviction of land on
the ground of default in payment of rents
and has also filed another Suit, which was
registered as P.A. Case No. 2 of 2015
before Prescribed Authority for release of
premises in dispute on account of bona-fide
need. Thereafter, compromise has taken
place between the parties and compromise
decree dated 12.11.2016 has been passed in
SCC Suit No. 11 of 2014 with the
undertaking of opposite party no.2-tenant
to vacate the said premises within three
months. Similarly, P.A. Case No. 2 of 2015
has also been decided vide order dated
29.11.2016 on the basis of compromise
with the similar undertaking to vacate the
premises in three months. Even after
completion of three months, complainanttenant has not vacated the said premise,
therefore, applicants have filed execution
application, which was registered as M.P.A.
Case No. 1 of 2017. Similarly, opposite
party no.2 has filed application in P.A. Case
No. 2 of 2015 for setting aside the
compromise decree dated 29.11.2016 on
the ground of fraud and also filed another
application in SCC Suit no. 11 of 2014 for
setting the compromise decree dated
12.11.2016 on the similar ground. Court
has
dismissed
the
application
of
complainant vide order dated 3.4.2017 for
setting aside the compromise deed dated
12.11.2016 passed in P.A. Case No. 2 of
2015.

4. In Execution Case i.e M.P.A. Case
No. 1 of 2017, Court has issued Parwana
Bedhakli and directed the SHO, Civil Lines
to get the premise vacated and ensure the
possession of the said premise to applicants
within 24 hours. The said order was
complied with by the Police Authority on
7.4.2017 and possession was delivered to
the applicant. This fact has also been
recorded in the general diary of police.
Thereafter, police filed compliance report
on 22.4.2017 before the Execution Court
about the compliance of order of the
Execution Court. Opposite party no.2 has
also filed petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India before this Court
challenging the eviction in which this Court
vide order dated 20.4.2017 rejected the stay
application. Another application preferred
by the opposite party no.2 for setting aside
the compromise decree dated 12.11.2016
passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 11 of 2014, has
also been dismissed by the Court vide order
dated 30.7.2018. At this stage, opposite
party
no.2
has
initiated
criminal
proceedings by filing complaint case after
inordinate delay of three months and 20
days.

5. Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel
for
the
applicants
has
assailed
the
summoning order on many grounds. Firstly,
1252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
he submitted that complaint has been filed
without proper explanation of delay. In
support of his contention, he has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Kishan Singh vs.
Gurpal Singh reported in AIR 2010 SC
3624.

6. He next submitted that it is pure
civil dispute and to settle the same,
criminal proceedings has been initiated by
the complainant, which is totally abuse of
process of law and is required to be set
aside. In support of of this contention, he
has placed reliance upon the judgment of
this Court as well as Apex Court in the
cases of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC
India Ltd. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736,
Usha Chakraborty vs. State of West
Bengal reported in 2023 SCC Online SC
90, Ramawatar vs. State of M.P. reported
in
(2022)
13
SCC
635
and
B.
Venkateshwaran
and
Ors.
Vs.
P.
Bakthavatchalam reported in AIR 2023
SC 262.

7. He further submitted that as per
version of complaint all event took place on
the date of eviction i.e. 7.4.2017 before the
police authority, but in the complaint, there
is no such facts mentioned about the
presence of police personal. Not only this,
eviction
proceedings
has
also
been
maintained in the general diary of police
and compliance report has also filed before
the Execution Court. Same has never been
challenged by the opposite party no.2,
which clearly shows that no such incident
has ever taken place and only to settle the
civil dispute, he has initiated criminal
proceedings. After eviction proceedings, he
has written letter dated 12.4.2017 to
District
Magistrate,
Additional
Commissioner, Deputy Chief Minister,
Chief Minister and Prime Minister and
same is having no reference of any incident
as alleged in the complaint upon which
summoning order has been issued.

8. He next submitted that not only
this, summoning order has been issued
under the provisions of SC/ST Act and he
submitted that law is very well settled that
in case any incident took place on the
ground that opposite party no.2 belongs to
SC/ST community only then summoning
order may be issued under the provisions of
SC/ST Act. In the present case, it is
undisputed that bone of contention is
tenancy dispute and it has nothing to do
with the caste of opposite party no.2,
therefore, proceedings under the SC/ST Act
may not be initiated. In support of his
contention, he has placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court as well as other
High Courts in the cases of Hitesh Verma
Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2021
Cri. L.J.1, Ashrafi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2018) 1 SCC 742 and Khuman
Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR
2019 SC 4030.

9. He lastly informed that now
opposite party no.2 has filed withdrawal
application on 9.11.2020 before the trial
Court to withdraw the complaint earlier so
filed with the clear cut assertion that due to
tenancy dispute, he had lodged complaint,
but presently, he does not want to press the
same. Therefore, in light of aforesaid facts
and circumstances, criminal proceedings is
bad and liable to be set aside.

10. Sri Awadesh Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2
has not disputed the aforesaid facts and
fairly accepted that now opposite party no.2
has filed withdrawal application before the
trial Court to withdraw the complaint
earlier so filed and further does not want to
2 All. Kunal Shah & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1253
pursue the criminal proceedings any further
against applicants.

11. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
record as well as summoning order.

12. It is undisputed that a civil dispute
of tenancy as referred hereinabove was
pending between the parties and ultimately
decided by the disposal of SCC Suit No. 11
of 2014 and P.A. Case No. 2 of 2015.
Further, criminal proceedings has only been
initiated by filing complaint after eviction
order has been passed having certain
allegations upon the applicant. Before
filing of complaint, application has also
filed
before
the
District
Magistrate,
Additional Chief Minister, Chief Minister
& Prime Minister having no reference of
the present incident, which is part of
present complaint, which creates doubt
over genuineness of complaint.

13. This complaint has been filed alongwith
delay of more than three months without having
any explanation. This fact has also been
considered by the Apex Court in the matter of
Kishan Singh (Supra). Relevant paragraph of the
said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-

21. Prompt and early reporting of the
occurrence by the informant with all its vivid
details gives an assurance regarding truth of its
version. In case, there is some delay in filing the
FIR, the complainant must give explanation for
the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR
does not make the complainant's case improbable
when such delay is properly explained. However,
deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is
always fatal. [vide: Sahib Singh Vs. State of
Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 3247].

22. In cases where there is a delay in
lodging a FIR, the Court has to look for a
plausible explanation for such delay. In absence of
such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The
reason for quashing such proceedings may not be
merely that the allegations were an after thought
or had given a coloured version of events. In such
cases the court should carefully examine the facts
before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant
who failed to succeed before the Civil Court may
initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the
other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior
motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party.
Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be
permitted to give vent to their frustrations by
cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal
court. The court proceedings ought not to be
permitted to degenerate into a weapon of
harassment and persecution. In such a case,
where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite
the other party because of a private and personal
grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and
arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take
a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process
of law in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(vide : Chandrapal Singh & Ors. Vs. Maharaj
Singh & Anr., AIR 1982 SC 1238; State of
Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.,
AIR 1992 SC 604; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754; and
Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. & Ors.,
(2008) 12 SCC 531).

14. From perusal of the facts of the
case as well as law laid down by the Apex
Court, it is required on the part of
complainant to explain the delay, if any
with cogent reasons, which is absolutely
missing in this matter, therefore, criminal
proceeding is bad and abuse the process of
law.

15. Now coming to next issue as to
whether
in
civil
dispute,
criminal
proceedings may be initiated or not. This
matter has very well considered and settled
by this Court as well as Apex Court in the
1254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
matter of Indian Oil Corporation vs.
NEPC India Ltd. reported in (2006) 6
SCC 736., Usha Chakraborty vs. State of
West Bengal reported in 2023 SCC Online
SC 90, Ramawatar vs. State of M.P.,
reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635 and B.
Venkateswaran
and
ors.
Vs.
P.
Bakthavatchalam reported in AIR 2023
SC 262.

16. I have perused the judgment of
Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil
Corporation
(Supra)
and
relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is quoted
hereinbelow:-

"13. While on this issue, it is
necessary to take notice of a growing
tendency in business circles to convert
purely civil disputes into criminal cases.
This is obviously on account of a prevalent
impression that civil law remedies are time
consuming and do not adequately protect
the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a
tendency is seen in several family disputes
also, leading to irretrievable break down of
marriages/families. There is also an
impression that if a person could somehow
be entangled in a criminal prosecution,
there is a likelihood of imminent settlement.
Any effort to settle civil disputes and
claims, which do not involve any criminal
offence, by applying pressure though
criminal prosecution should be deprecated
and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri vs. State
of U.P [2000 (2) SCC 636], this Court
observed :

"It is to be seen if a matter, which
is essentially of civil nature, has been given
a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal
proceedings are not a short cut of other
remedies available in law. Before issuing
process a criminal court has to exercise a
great deal of caution. For the accused it is
a serious matter. This Court has laid
certain principles on the basis of which
High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction
under section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction
under this Section has to be exercised to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

17. I have also perused the judgment
of Apex Court in the case of Usha
Chakarborty
(Supra)
and
relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is quoted
hereinbelow:-

15. The materials on record
pertaining to the said pleadings instituted
in the Civil Suit, produced in this
proceeding
would
reveal
that
the
respondent was in fact ousted from the
membership of the trust. In the counter
affidavit filed in this proceeding, the
respondent has virtually admitted the
pendency of the suit filed against his
removal from the post of Secretary and the
trusteeship and its pendency. The factum of
passing
of
adverse
orders
in
the
interlocutory applications in the said Civil
Suit as also the prima facie finding and
conclusion arrived at by the Civil Court
that the respondent stands removed from
the post of Secretary and also from the
trusteeship are also not disputed therein.
Then, the question is why would the
respondent conceal those relevant aspects?
The indisputable and undisputed facts
(admitted in the counter-affidavit by the
respondent) would reveal the existence of
the civil dispute on removal of the
respondent from the post of Secretary of the
school as also from the trusteeship.
Obviously, it can only be taken that since
the removal from the office of the Secretary
and the trusteeship was the causative
incident, he concealed the pendency of the
civil suit to cover up the civil nature of the
dispute.
2 All. Kunal Shah & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1255

16.
By
non-disclosure
the
respondent has, in troth, concealed the
existence of a pending civil suit between
him and the appellants herein before a
competent civil court which obviously is the
causative incident for the respondent's
allegation of perpetration of the aforesaid
offences against the appellants. We will
deal with it further and also its impact a
little later. There cannot be any doubt with
respect to the position that in order to
cause registration of an F.I.R. and
consequential investigation based on the
same the petition filed under Section
156(3), Cr.P.C., must satisfy the essential
ingredients to attract the alleged offences.
In other words, if such allegations in the
petition are vague and are not specific with
respect to the alleged offences it cannot
lead to an order for registration of an F.I.R.
and investigation on the accusation of
commission of the offences alleged. As
noticed
hereinbefore,
the
respondent
alleged commission of offences under
Sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420
and 120B, IPC against the appellants. A
bare perusal of the said allegation and the
ingredients to attract them, as adverted to
hereinbefore
would
reveal
that
the
allegations are vague and they did not
carry the essential ingredients to constitute
the alleged offences. There is absolutely no
allegation in the complaint that the
appellants herein had caused hurt on the
respondent so also, they did not reveal a
case that the appellants had intentionally
put the respondent in fear of injury either to
himself or another or by putting him under
such fear or injury, dishonestly induced him
to deliver any property or valuable security.
The same is the position with respect to the
alleged offences punishable under Sections
406, 423 , 467, 468, 420 and 120 B, IPC.
The ingredients to attract the alleged
offence referred to hereinbefore and the
nature of the allegations contained in the
application filed by the respondent would
undoubtedly make it clear that the
respondent had failed to make specific
allegation against the appellants herein in
respect of the aforesaid offences. The
factual position thus would reveal that the
genesis as also the purpose of criminal
proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid
incident and further that the dispute
involved is essentially of civil nature. The
appellants and the respondents have given
a cloak of criminal offence in the issue. In
such circumstance when the respondent
had already resorted to the available civil
remedy and it is pending, going by the
decision in Paramjit Batra (supra), the
High Court would have quashed the
criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse
of the process of the Court but for the
concealment.
17. In the aforesaid circumstances, 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 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 appellants. The
indisputable facts that the respondent has
filed the pending title suit in the year 2015 ,
he got no case that he obtained an interim
relief against his removal from the office of
Secretary
of
the
School
Managing
Committee as also the trusteeship, that he
filed the stated application for an order for
investigation only in April, 2017 together
with absence of a case that despite such
removal he got a right to get informed of
the affairs of the school and also the trust,
would only support the said conclusion.
For all these reasons, we are of the
considered view that this case invites
1256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
invocation of the power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR registered based
on the direction of the Magistrate Court in
the afore-stated application and all further
proceeding in pursuance thereof. Also, we
have no hesitation to hold that permitting
continuance of the criminal proceedings
against the appellants in the aforesaid
circumstances would result in abuse of the
process of Court and also in miscarriage of
justice.

18. Similar matter was also come up
before the Apex Court in the matter of
Ramawatar (Supra). Relevant Paragraph
of
the
said
judgment
is
quoted
hereinbelow:-

"17. On the other hand, where it
appears to the Court that the offence in
question, although covered under the
SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in
nature, or where the alleged offence has not
been committed on account of the caste of
the victim, or where the continuation of the
legal proceedings would be an abuse of the
process of law, the Court can exercise its
powers to quash the proceedings. On
similar lines, when considering a prayer
for
quashing
on
the
basis
of
a
compromise/settlement, if the Court is
satisfied that the underlying objective of the
Act
would
not
be
contravened
or
diminished even if the felony in question
goes unpunished, the mere fact that the
offence is covered under a 'special statute'
would not refrain this Court or the High
Court, from exercising their respective
powers
under
Article
142
of
the
Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.

19. This issue was again come before
the Apex Court in the matter of B.
Venkasteshwaran (Supra) wherein Apex
Court has also taken the same view.
Relevant paragraph of the said judgments
are quoted hereinbelow:-

"We have heard Shri Nagamuthu,
learned senior counsel for the appellants -
original accused and the respondent
appearing in person. We have also gone
through the complaint and considered the
allegations in the complaint made against
the
accused.
Having
considered
the
allegations in the complaint and the
material on record, it appears that
initiation of the criminal proceedings by the
respondent
against
the
appellants
-
original accused for the offence under the
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 is nothing but an abuse of
process of law and the court and also
provision of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989. It appears that a private dispute
was going on between the parties with
respect to the illegal construction. As per
the allegations in the complaint, the
original complainant had purchased the
vacant land and constructed the building. It
is alleged that adjacent to his house and on
the common pathway, the accused have
unlawfully encroached upon the pathway
and started constructing the temple and
thereby have put up illegal construction on
his water pipeline, sewage pipeline and EB
Cable. In the entire complaint, there are no
allegations
that
the
complainant
is
obstructed and / or interfered with
enjoyment of his right on his property
deliberately and willfully knowing that
complainant belongs to SC/ST. From the
material on record, it appears that a civil
dispute is converted into criminal dispute
and that too for the offence under the
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989. Prior to filing of the complaint,
2 All. Kunal Shah & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1257
it appears that the temple was already in
existence
since
many
years.
The
complainant, who resides adjacent to the
temple, filed WP No. 1272 of 2007 before
the Madras High Court. Pursuant to the
order passed by the High Court, the
Commissioner of Corporation, Chennai
conducted the inspection and found that
there was absolutely no encroachment by
the temple. It appears that thereafter the
complainant filed another Writ Petition No.
30326 of 2013 before the Madras High
Court. The High Court directed the official
respondent to proceed with the inquiry
against both the parties. At this stage, it is
required to be noted that it was the case on
behalf of the original accused that in fact
complainant had violated all building
norms and had constructed a building in
blatant violation of the set-back rules and
had
also
put-up
unauthorized
con14struction on the ground floor and
first floor. That thereafter, the Temple filed
writ petition being No.3322 of 2017 before
the High Court. The Division Bench of the
High Court vide order dated 10.2.2017
stayed the proceedings against temple. It
appears that thereafter the complainant
filed a private complaint for the aforesaid
offences under the provisions of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. From
the aforesaid, it seems that the private civil
dispute between the parties is converted
into criminal proceedings. Initiation of the
criminal proceedings for the offences under
Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled
Castes
and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
therefore, is nothing but an abuse of
process of law and Court. From the
material on record, we are satisfied that no
case for the offences under Sections 3(1)(v)
and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 is made out, even prima facie.
None of the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(v)
and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 are made out and/ or satisfied.
Therefore, we are of the firm opinion and
view that in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the High Court ought to have
quashed the criminal proceedings in
exercise of powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The impugned
judgment and order passed by the High
Court, therefore, is unsustainable and the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside
and the criminal proceedings initiated
against the appellants deserves to be
quashed and set aside."

20. Judgements are very much clear
that in the matter of civil dispute, criminal
proceedings cannot be initiated. In the
present case, it is tenancy dispute, which is
civil
in
nature,
therefore,
criminal
proceedings is bad and gross misuse of
process of law.

21. There is another issue as to
whether any case is made out under the
provisions of SC/ST Act or not. This matter
has very well considered by the Apex Court
in the case of Hitesh Verma (Supra) and
relevant paragraph of the said judgment is
quoted hereinbelow:

"16. There is a dispute about the
possession of the land which is the subject
matter of civil dispute between the parties
as per respondent No.2 herself. Due to
dispute, appellant and others were not
permitting respondent No.2 to cultivate the
land for the last six months. Since the
matter is regarding possession of property
pending before the Civil Court, any dispute
arising on account of possession of the said
property would not disclose an offence
1258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under the Act unless the victim is abused,
intimated or harassed only for the reason
that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe.

22. The appellant had sought
quashing of the charge-sheet on the ground
that the allegation does not make out an
offence under the Act against the appellant
merely because respondent No. 2 was a
Scheduled Caste since the property dispute was
not on account of the fact that respondent No. 2
was a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes
between a vulnerable section of the society and
a person of upper caste will not disclose any
offence under the Act unless, the allegations are
on account of the victim being a Scheduled
Caste. Still further, the finding that the appellant
was aware of the caste of the informant is
wholly inconsequential as the knowledge does
not bar, any person to protect his rights by way
of a procedure established by law."

22. Similar matter was also come before
this Court in the matter of Ashrafi (Supra).
Relevant paragraph of the said judgments are
quoted hereinbelow:-

"9. The evidence and materials on
record do not show that the appellant had
committed rape on the victim on the ground that
she belonged to Scheduled Caste. Section
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act
can be pressed into service only if it is proved
that the rape has been committed on the ground
that PW-3 Phoola Devi belonged to Scheduled
Caste community. In the absence of evidence
proving intention of the appellant in committing
the offence upon PW-3-Phoola Devi only
because she belongs to Scheduled Caste
community, the conviction of the appellant
under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention
of Atrocities Act cannot be sustained.

23. The similar view is again taken by the
Apex Court in the matter of Khuman Singh
(Supra). Relevant paragraph of the said
judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-

"9. The evidence and materials on
record do not show that the appellant had
committed rape on the victim on the ground that
she belonged to Scheduled Caste. Section
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act
can be pressed into service only if it is proved
that the rape has been committed on the ground
that PW-3 Phoola Devi belonged to Scheduled
Caste community. In the absence of evidence
proving intention of the appellant in committing
the offence upon PW-3-Phoola Devi only
because she belongs to Scheduled Caste
community, the conviction of the appellant
under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention
of Atrocities Act cannot be sustained13. In
Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan
(2006) 3 SCC 771, the Supreme Court held as
under:-

"15. Sine qua non for application of
Section 3(2)(v) is that an offence must have
been committed against a person on the ground
that such person is a member of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the instant case
no evidence has been led to establish this
requirement. It is not case of the prosecution
that the rape was committed on the victim since
she was a member of Scheduled Caste. In the
absence of evidence to that effect, Section
3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act been applicable
then by operation of law, the sentence
would have been imprisonment for life and
fine.

As held by the Supreme Court, the
offence must be such so as to attract the
offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.
The offence must have been committed
against the person on the ground that such
person is a member of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the
fact that the deceased was belonging to
"Khangar"-Scheduled
Caste
is
not
disputed. There is no evidence to show that
2 All. Smt. Indra Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
1259
the offence was committed only on the
ground that the victim was a member of the
Scheduled
Caste
and
therefore,
the
conviction of the appellant-accused under
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act is not sustainable."

24. Even in the matter of Ramawatar
(Supra) and Venkateshwaran (Supra)
discussed hereinabove with regard to civil
dispute, Court has also taken the same view
that in case offence has not been committed
on account of caste of victim, no case is
made out under the provisions of SC/ST,
Act.

25. From perusal of the judgments, it
is apparently clear that Apex Court has
taken consistent view that in case incident
took place due to caste of victim then
provisions of SC/ST Act would be
attracted, but the in the present case, it was
tenancy dispute having nothing to do with
the caste of opposite party no.2, therefore,
proceedings under the SC/ST Act is bad
and cannot not be permitted to continue.

26. Therefore, under such facts and
circumstances of the case as well as settled
provisions of law, criminal proceedings
initiated against the applicants are bad and
liable to be quashed.

27. Now at belated stage, it appears
that good sense prevailed in the mind of
opposite party no.2 and in turn, he decided
to file withdrawal application before the
trial Court to withdraw the complaint, but
even otherwise on merits too, no case is
made out against the applicants in light of
observations made hereinabove.

28. Accordingly, summoning order
dated
18.5.2019
as
well
as
entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No. 171 of
2017 (Jai Kumar Harijan vs. Kunal Shah
and others) renumbered as Sessions Case
No. 1506 of 2023 (State of U.P. vs. Kunal
Shah and others), under Sections 323, 504,
506, 427 IPC and Section 3(2) (va) of
SC/ST Act, pending in the court of Special
Judge
SC/ST, Allahabad
are
hereby
quashed.

Application succeeds and allowed.

29. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1259
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 29005 of 2010

Smt. Indra Devi & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Deepak Singh Yadav

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Gorakh Yadav

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 & 427
- Application u/s 482 - for quashing of
Complaint Case, instituted by opposite party no.
2 as well as summoning order - complaint Case
- alleged commission of offences punishable
u/section 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 IPC -
Preliminary objection - a previous identical
petition having been dismissed on merits by the
Court - applicants deliberately concealed this
earlier dismissal while filing the present petition
- Court finds that, the applicants had engaged in
dishonest conduct by filing a second petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a complaint