# Lalli @ Siv Lali & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 544
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-31
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No.1805 of 2018
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalli-siv-lali-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48135
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, Sections
363, 366 & 376 - The Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
Section 3, 4 - father alleged that accused
have enticed away his daughter alleged to be 15
years of age - CMO certified age of his
daughter to be 18 years - In her statement
recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., his daughter stated
that she had gone away with the applicant no. 2
out of her own free will and she married the
applicant no. 2 and is residing with him as his
wife - She stated that her father had lodged an
FIR on false allegations and no wrong has been
committed with her - She is living happily with
the applicant no. 2 as her parents used to beat
her with sticks - She ran-away with the
applicant no. 2 out of her own free will -
Marriage certificate was also produced - Held -
FIR was lodged on false allegations & the
proceedings initiated on the basis of the said
FIR are a clear abuse of the process of law -
Proceedings liable to be quashed

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
matrimonial home was not allowed to live
peacefully by the husband or concentrate
on her job. The petitioner has been
constantly harassing her and her case falls
clearly under the explanation (a) of the
word ''cruelty' given under Section 498-A
of the IPC.

28. No case made out to show
interference in this petition.

29. Accordingly, the petition stands
rejected.
----------
(2022)02ILR A544
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No.1805 of 2018

Lalli @ Siv Lali & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Arvind Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, Sections
363, 366 & 376 - The Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
Section 3, 4 - father alleged that accused
have enticed away his daughter alleged to be 15
years of age - CMO certified age of his
daughter to be 18 years - In her statement
recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., his daughter stated
that she had gone away with the applicant no. 2
out of her own free will and she married the
applicant no. 2 and is residing with him as his
wife - She stated that her father had lodged an
FIR on false allegations and no wrong has been
committed with her - She is living happily with
the applicant no. 2 as her parents used to beat
her with sticks - She ran-away with the
applicant no. 2 out of her own free will -
Marriage certificate was also produced - Held -
FIR was lodged on false allegations & the
proceedings initiated on the basis of the said
FIR are a clear abuse of the process of law -
Proceedings liable to be quashed

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335

2. Vineet Kumar Vs St. of U.P. (2017) 13 SCC
369

3. Pankaj Kumar Vs St. of Mah. (2008) 16 SCC
117

4. Geo Varghese Vs St. of Raj. 2021 SCC Online
SC 873

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

1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned
counsel for the applicants and Mr. Prem
Prakash, learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of the present application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants
have sought quashing of summoning order
and the order dated 12.10.2017 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5,
Barabanki in C.T. No. 39/2017 as well as
charge-sheet
No.
127/2016
dated
04.09.2016 in case Crime No. 90/2016,
under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4
POCSO Act, Police Station Ramnagar,
District Barabanki.

3. The facts of the case, briefly stated,
are that on 29.03.2015 a first information
report under Sections 363, 366 IPC was
lodged at Police Station Ramnagar, District
Barabanki by the opposite party no. 2,
2 All. Lalli @ Siv Lali & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
545
Ghan Shyam, father of the applicant no. 1
alleging that Parvesh, Nandu, Pratap and
wife of Parvesh have enticed away his
daughter-applicant no. 1 alleged to be 15
years of age. Although the applicant no. 2
was not named in the FIR, his name was
subsequently added and the name of all the
persons made accused in the FIR were
expunged upon coming into the light the
fact that the applicant no. 1 had married
with applicant no. 2.

4. The applicant no. 1 was produced
before
the
Chief
Medical
Officer,
Barabanki for her medical examination
who certified her age to be 18 years.

5. In her statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., which was recorded
after expiry of a period of four years of the
alleged incident and in pursuance of the
direction issued by this Court vide order
dated 23.06.2016 passed in Writ Petition
No. 14565 (MB) of 2016, the applicant no.
1 stated that she had gone away with the
applicant no. 2 out of her own free will and
she married the applicant no. 2 and is
residing with him as his wife. She gave
birth to a son who could not survive. She
categorically stated that her father had
lodged an FIR on false allegations and no
wrong has been committed with her. She is
living happily with the applicant no. 2 as
her parents used to beat her with sticks. She
ran-away with the applicant no. 2 out of her
own free will.

6. A copy of the marriage certificate
issued by the District Marriage Officer,
Barabanki has also been placed on record,
in which the age of the applicant no. 2 is
mentioned to be 21 years and it has been
certified that the applicant no. 1 got
married to the applicant no. 2 on
09.07.2015.

7. The applicants have also brought
on record a copy of a certificate dated
05.03.2018 issued by the Village Pradhan
certifying that the applicant no. 1 is the
wife of the applicant no. 2, they reside in
Village Utkhara, Police Station and Tehsil
Ramnagar, District Barabanki and they
have got a son, namely, Kishan who was
born on 04.12.2017. The applicants have
also filed a copy of "Mother and Child Care
Card" issued by the Integrated Health
Development Service, National Health
Mission which states that the applicant no.
1 gave birth to a son on 04.12.20174 and in
this card apparently prepared in the year
2017, the age of the applicant no. 1 stated
to be 20 years.

8. By means of an order dated
04.04.2018, notice was ordered to be issued
to the opposite party no. 2-informant and
the
respondent-State
was
also
given
opportunity to file its objections/counter
affidavit.

9. The learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Barabanki has submitted a
report dated 23.04.2018 stating that the
notice issued to the opposite party no. 2 has
been served in person but in spite of
personal service of notice, the opposite
party no. 2 has not filed any objection nor a
counter affidavit in this case. The State has
also elected not to oppose the application
by filing a counter affidavit.

10. It has been pleaded in the affidavit
filed in support of the application that the
applicants had filed Writ Petition No.
14565 (MB) of 2016 seeking quashing of
the FIR registered as case Crime No.
90/2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC
and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station
Ramnagar, District Barabanki lodged by
the opposite party no. 2 and by means of an
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order dated 23.06.2016 this Court had
disposed off the writ petition with a
direction that till a report under Section 173
(2) Cr.P.C. was forwarded by the police,
the applicants shall not be arrested in the
aforesaid case crime.

11. It has been pleaded by the
applicants that the applicant no. 1 was
found to be major in her medical
examination and was willing to go with her
husband-applicant no. 2, however, her
father
deliberately
detained
her
and,
therefore, the applicant no. 1 had to
approach this Court again by filing Writ
Petition No. 21317 (HC) of 2016 and when
the applicant no. 1 was produced in this
Court, she categorically stated that she
wanted to go with the applicant no. 2Tannu Yadav son of Parag Yadav.

12. By means of the judgment and
order dated 19.09.2016, the aforesaid writ
petition was allowed and the applicant no.
1 was allowed to live her life as per her
own wish and since then applicant no. 1 is
residing with the applicant no. 2 as wife
and husband peacefully.

13. The applicants had filed the
instant application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. on 02.04.2018 and on 04.04.2018,
this court had passed an order issuing
notice of the application to the opposite
party no. 2, which was served on him
personally on 22.04.2018. However, the
opposite party no. 2 has not put in
appearance in the case to contest the same
and it appears that he is not interested in
prosecution of the applicant no. 2, who is
now the son-in-law of the informant -
opposite party no. 2.

14. The scope of interference by the
High Courts in proceedings under Section
482, Cr.P.C. has been succinctly laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335, in the following words: -

"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) 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
2 All. Lalli @ Siv Lali & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
547
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 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."

12. In Vineet Kumar versus State
of U.P. reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to
hold that: -

"41. Inherent power given to the
High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
with
the
purpose
and
object
of
advancement of justice. In case solemn
process of Court is sought to be abused by
a person with some oblique motive, the
Court has to thwart the attempt at the very
threshold. The Court cannot permit a
prosecution to go on if the case falls in one
of
the
categories
as
illustratively
enumerated by this Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is
a solemn proceeding which cannot be
allowed to be converted into an instrument
of operation or harassment. When there are
materials to indicate that a criminal
proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive, the High
Court will not hesitate in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to
quash the proceeding under Category 7 as
enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, which is to the following effect: (SCC
p. 379, para 102)

"102. (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."

15. In Pankaj Kumar v. State of
Maharashtra, (2008) 16 SCC 117, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to
explain the scope and ambit of powers of
the High Courts under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
in the following words: -

"14.The scope and ambit of
powers of the High Court under Section
482
CrPC
or
Article
227
of
the
Constitution has been enunciated and
reiterated by this Court in a series of
decisions and several circumstances under
which the High Court can exercise
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction in quashing proceedings have
been enumerated. Therefore, we consider it
unnecessary to burden the judgment by
making reference to all the decisions on the
point. It would suffice to state that though
the powers possessed by the High Courts
under the said provisions are very wide but
these should be exercised in appropriate
cases,ex debito justitiaeto do real and
substantial justice for the administration of
which alone the courts exist. The inherent
powers
do not
confer an
arbitrary
jurisdiction on the High Court to act
according to whim or caprice. The powers
have to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection and in the rarest of rare
cases, where the court is convinced, on the
basis of material on record, that allowing
the proceedings to continue would be an
abuse of the process of the court or that the
ends of justice require that the proceedings
ought to be quashed. (See Janata Dal
v.H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 :
1993
SCC
(Cri)
36]
,Kurukshetra
University v. State of Haryana [(1977) 4
SCC 451 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 613] and State
of Haryana v.Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] .)"The
expression "rarest of rare cases" used by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal
has been explained in Google India (P)
Ltd. v. Visaka Industries, (2020) 4 SCC 162
in the following words: -

"43. As to what is the scope of the
expression "rarest of rare cases" indicated
in para 103, we may only refer to the
judgment of this Court in Jeffrey J.
Diermeier v. State of W.B.,(2010) 6 SCC
243 wherein the law laid down by a Bench
of three Judges in Som Mittal (2) v. State of
Karnataka (2008) 3 SCC 574 has been
referred
to
:
(Jeffrey
J.
Diermeier
case(2010) 6 SCC 243, SCC p. 252, para
23)

"23.
The
purport
of
the
expression "rarest of rare cases", to which
reference was made by Shri Venugopal, has
been explained recently in Som Mittal (2) v.
State of Karnataka(2008) 3 SCC 574.
Speaking for a Bench of three Judges, the
Hon'ble the Chief Justice said : (SCC pp.
580-81, para 9)

''9. When the words "rarest of
rare cases" are used after the words
"sparingly and with circumspection" while
describing the scope of Section 482, those
words merely emphasise and reiterate what
is intended to be conveyed by the words
"sparingly and with circumspection". They
mean that the power under Section 482 to
quash proceedings should not be used
mechanically or routinely, but with care
and caution, only when a clear case for
quashing is made out and failure to
interfere would lead to a miscarriage of
justice. The expression "rarest of rare
cases" is not used in the sense in which it is
used with reference to punishment for
offences under Section 302 IPC, but to
emphasise that the power under Section
482 CrPC to quash the FIR or criminal
proceedings should be used sparingly and
with circumspection.'"

16. In a recent pronouncement
reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 873, Geo
Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"35. The scope and ambit of
inherent powers of the Court under Section
482 CrPC or the extra-ordinary power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, now stands well defined by series of
judicial
pronouncements.
Undoubtedly,
every High Court has inherent power to
actex debito justitiae i.e., to do real and
substantial justice, or to prevent abuse of
the process of the Court. The powers being
2 All. Lalli @ Siv Lali & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
549
very wide in itself imposes a solemn duty
on the Courts, requiring great caution in its
exercise. The Court must be careful to see
that its decision in exercise of this power is
based on sound principles. The inherent
power vested in the Court should not be
exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
However, the inherent power or the extraordinary power conferred upon the High
Court, entitles the said Court to quash a
proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion
that allowing the proceeding to continue
would be an abuse of the process of the
Court, or the ends of justice require that
the proceeding ought to be quashed.

36. The following observations
made by this Court in the case of State of
Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy may be
relevant to note at this stage:--

"The whole some power under
Section 482 CrPC entitles the High Court
to quash a proceeding when it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to
continue would be an abuse of the process
of the Court or that the ends of justice
require that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. The High Courts have been
invested with inherent power, both in civil
and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary
public purposes. A Court proceeding ought
not to be permitted to degenerate into a
weapon of harassment or persecution. The
Court observed in this case that ends of
justice are higher than the ends of mere
law though justice must be administered
according to laws made by the legislature."

17. The entire material available on
record, including the statements of the
applicant no. 1 under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
and Section 164 Cr.P.C., report of the
medical examination of the applicant no. 1
conducted by the Chief Medical Officer,
Barabanki, the certificate of registration of
marriage of the applicant no. 1 and
applicant no. 2 and the mother and child
safety card issued by the Integrated Child
Development Services, National Health
Mission establish that the applicant no. 1
is major, she had gone with the applicant
no. 2 and has married him willingly and
the
allegations
levelled
against
the
applicant no. 2 in the FIR are false. The
police has submitted the charge-sheet
dated 04.09.2016 and the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Barabanki
has passed an order summoning the
applicant no. 2 and has issued non-bailable
warrant against him without a proper
application of mind to the aforesaid
material available on record.

18. The State as well as the opposite
party no. 2 have not filed any counter
affidavit and, therefore, the averments
made in the affidavit filed in support of the
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
remain uncontroverted.

19. Considering the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, it appears that the FIR
in question was lodged on false allegations
and the proceedings initiated on the basis of
the said FIR are a clear abuse of the process
of law.

20. Therefore, in view of the above
and considering the dictum of the Apex
Court, the entire proceedings initiated in
pursuance
of
the
charge-sheet
No.
127/2016 dated 04.09.2016 in case Crime
No. 90/2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376
IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station
Ramnagar, District Barabanki as well as
summoning and NBW dated 12.10.2017
including the charge-sheet No. 127/2016
and FIR registered as case Crime No.
90/2016 are hereby quashed.
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. Accordingly, the application is
allowed.
----------
(2022)02ILR A550
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.2742 of 2007

Sanjay Gulati ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Krishna Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) FIR alleges advancement of money to
Applicant accused but goods not received
in return-receipt of goods could not be
refuted by complainant -no mention of the
Applicant in the FIR-no disclosure of
prima facie commission of offence against
Applicant-such proceeding would result in
an abuse of the process of law-proceeding
quashed.

Held, In the entire complaint there is no
allegation of any threat 10 having been
extended by the applicant, or by the alleged
Sandeep, to the complainant and any injury to
his person, reputation or property, or to the
person or reputation of any one in whom that
person is interested, with intent to cause alarm
to that person, or to cause that person to do
any act which he is not legally bound to do, or
to omit to do any act which that person is
legally entitled to do. Therefore, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the essential
ingredients of the offence punishable under
Sections 420 and 506 IPC are not made out
from a bare perusal of the complaint, besides
the fact that the entire complaint does not make
any mention of the name of the complaint
namely viz. Sanjay Gulati. (para 22)

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Surya Pratap Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
reported in 2015 8 ADJ 580

2. Lourence D" Souza Vs St. of U.P. & anr.
reported in 2017 (2) ALJ 156

3. Anil Mahajan Vs Bhor Industries Ltd. & anr.
(2005) 10 SCC 228

4. Geo Varghese Vs St. of Raj., 2021 SCC Online
SC 873

5. Rajiv Thapar Vs Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3
SCC 330

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

1. Heard Shri Krishna Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant and
learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents
and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant application
under Section 482 of
the
Criminal
Procedure
Code
the
applicant-Sanjay
Gulati s/o Shri Mahendra Gulati has prayed
for quashing of the entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 419 of 2006 under
Section 420, 506 I.P.C. in Police Station
Civil Lines, District Moradabad pending in
the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Moradabad, Court No. 2.

3. The facts of the case as borne out
from the record are that the complainant
Kamal Singh, who has been arrayed as the
opposite party No. 2 in the application
under Section 482 Criminal Procedure
Code, filed a complaint dated 23-06-2005
under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal
Procedure Code alleging that he had taken