# Muttan & Ors v. The State. of U.P.& Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 48
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-04-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No.6348 of 2005
- **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/muttan-ors-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-44810
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law-Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Scope -
Quashing of entire criminal complaint
proceedings. Complaint case filed on basis
of improbable allegations, malice, oblique
motives and vengeance- Matter falls in
category no.(7) mentioned in the case of
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992
SCC(Cr.) - Continuation of the proceedings
on that basis is likely to result in abuse of
court's process- Accordingly application is
allowed and the entire proceedings of
complaint in question against the accusedapplicants stand quashed.

Complaint under sections 420/406 I.P.C. filed
by the father-in-law of the Applicant No.4 as a
counterblast to the Cases filed by the
Applicant No. 4 under section 498-A I.P.C. etc.
and under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. -
Applicant no.4, is daughter-in-law of opposite
party no.2. Allegation that she took away
certain jewellery with her. (Para 5).

Application
u/s
482
Cr.P.C.
stand
quashed (E-3)

List of cases cited :-

## Text

48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 10-A of the Act retention by the
Central Government can only be for four
weeks. Thereafter it can only be retained
by an order of the Passport Authority
under Section 10(3).

18. In our opinion, even the court
cannot impound a passport. Though, no
doubt, Section 104 CrPC states that the court
may, if it thinks fit, impound any document or
thing produced before it, in our opinion, this
provision will only enable the court to
impound any document or thing other than a
passport. This is because impounding of a
"passport" is provided for in Section 10(3) of
the Passports Act. The Passports Act is a
special law while CrPC is a general law. It is
well settled that the special law prevails over
the general law vide G.P. Singh's Principles
of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edn., p. 133).
This principle is expressed in the maxim
generalia specialibus non derogant. Hence,
impounding of a passport cannot be done by
the court under Section 104 CrPC though it
can impound any other document or thing.

19. For the aforesaid reasons,
we set aside the impugned order of the
High Court and direct the respondent to
hand over the passport to the appellant
within a week from today. However, it
shall be open to the respondent to
approach the Passport Authorities under
Section 10 or the authorities under
Section 10-A of the Act for impounding
the
passport
of
the
appellant
in
accordance with law."

16. As it is evident from the record
and also from the impugned order that no
any written request was made by the
Forest Official for retaining the passport
before the court below and only the
Prosecuting
Officer
has
made
his
anticipation that in case, the passport of
applicant is released, he may flee away
This submission must be based on the
instruction of the Authority. The trial
court cannot retain the passport on the
request of the Prosecuting Officer.

17. The Act is the complete code
read with the Passport Rules, 1980 which
contains the procedure for issuance and
revocation of passport, Section 10 of the
Act clearly provides the procedure for
impounding the passport, in case, any
criminal proceeding is initiated against
the holder, therefore, it is appropriate that
the opposite party may approach to the
Passport Authority for impounding of the
passport of the applicant.

18. In view of the above facts and
discussions, the present application is
allowed. The impugned order dated
06.07.2019 is quashed. The passport of
the applicant be handed over to him
forthwith. However, it shall be open to
the opposite party to approach to the
Passport Authority under the Provisions
of the Act for impounding the passport of
the applicant in accordance with the law.
----------
(2019)11ILR A48

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.04.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.6348 of 2005
(U/S 482 Cr.P.C.)

Muttan & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
The State. of U.P.& Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
 Sri
A.R.Gupta.
3 All. Muttan & Ors.Vs. The State of U.P.& Anr.
49
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law-Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Scope -
Quashing of entire criminal complaint
proceedings. Complaint case filed on basis
of improbable allegations, malice, oblique
motives and vengeance- Matter falls in
category no.(7) mentioned in the case of
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992
SCC(Cr.) - Continuation of the proceedings
on that basis is likely to result in abuse of
court's process- Accordingly application is
allowed and the entire proceedings of
complaint in question against the accusedapplicants stand quashed.

Complaint under sections 420/406 I.P.C. filed
by the father-in-law of the Applicant No.4 as a
counterblast to the Cases filed by the
Applicant No. 4 under section 498-A I.P.C. etc.
and under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. -
Applicant no.4, is daughter-in-law of opposite
party no.2. Allegation that she took away
certain jewellery with her. (Para 5).

Application
u/s
482
Cr.P.C.
stand
quashed (E-3)

List of cases cited :-

1. St. of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (1992)
SCC(Cr.)426.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand
Bajpayee, J. )

1. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed seeking the quashing of entire
proceedings arising out of Case No. 662 of
2003, under sections 420/ 406 I.P.C., Police
Station- Rajpur, District- Kanpur Dehat
(Noore @ Noor Hasan vs. Multan and
others) pending in the Court of Civil Judge
(J.D.) Bhaganipur, Kanpur Dehat.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants.

3. Submission of the applicants'
counsel is that the complaint in question
has been lodged with express mala fides
only in order to add harassment to the
applicants and in order to add coercive
pressure upon the applicants not to pursue
the matter against the opposite party
which it was facing. It was pointed out
that applicant no.4, Anwar Jahan was
married to one Mohammad Obaid, son of
opposite party no.2. Anwar Jahan was
very badly treated by her husband and inlaws and because of the same a case
under section 498A etc. had to be filed.
Apart from this a case of refusal to
maintain her under section 125 Cr.P.C.
was also brought in the Court on behalf of
applicant no.4, Anwar Jahan. Submission
is that the proceedings of 125 Cr.P.C. was
initiated on 16.4.2002 while the case
under section 498A etc. was brought
against the opposite party no.2 on
1.10.2002. Reliance in this regard was
placed on Annexure No.1 and 2 of the
application which are the copies of
application under section 125 Cr.P.C. and
complaint filed against the husband side.
Further submission is that a lot of
pressure
was
exercised
upon
the
applicants that they should not pursue the
matter and should enter into compromise
but as Anwar Jahan was subjected to
enormous cruelty the applicants did not
buckle down and decided to pursue the
matter against husband side against all
odds. Indignated by the same the opposite
party has used the present complaint case
as an arm twisting device out of ire and
vengeance. Submission is that malice
behind the complaint is apparent on the
face of record and in view of the Apex
Court's decision given in Bhajanlal's case,
the proceedings against applicants ought
to be quashed in the wake of mala fides
which are demonstrable in this case. The
50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
improbability of the allegations and the
story given out in the complaint was also
emphasized by the counsel. It has also
been pointed out that the alleged
jewellery said to have been taken away by
Anwar Jahan was her own streedhan as
per the allegations made in the complaint
and it would hardly constitute any offence
if she took it.

4. Heard learned A.G.A. and
perused the record.

5. Notice on the opposite party was
served but nobody is present on his
behalf. The perusal of the complaint
shows that so far as the jewellery part
which is said to have been taken away by
Anwar Jahan is concerned it is said to
have been given to her in Chadhava
which is a convention prevalent in Hindus
whereby gifts in the form of jewellery are
given to the daughter-in-law when she
contracts marriage. Just as the parents
give gifts to the daughter, the in-laws also
confer gifts as Chadhava to the daughterin-law. Therefore so far as the jewellery
part which is said to have been taken
away by Anwar Jahan is concerned, there
appears substance in the submission made
by the counsel in that regard and even if
for the sake of argument it is taken to be
true that she took away certain jewelleries
with her they are according to the
allegations of complaint in the nature of
Chadhava which will be tantamount to
her own streedhan. Therefore so far as
that part of allegation is concerned it shall
hardly constitute any offence. So far as
the other allegations regarding amount of
Rs.25,000/- having been taken away by
wife is concerned the allegation appears
to be not very convincing or palatable.
There does not appear to be any good
reason as to why the husband would put
Rs.25,000/- in the suitcase of the wife and
not in his own. If the relationship of
husband and wife were cordial and if
there was no dispute in between them and
if the relationship were normal then it
might be easily believed that a husband
may put the cash in the suitcase of the
wife. But in the wake of the bitterness
which existed in between the two and in
the wake of the background which is
discernible from record that there was
hardly any love lost between the couple
though they lived together under the same
roof, such kind of allegation that a
sufficient by big amount of cash was put
not in the suitcase of the husband or the
parents but was put in the suitcase of the
embittered and hostile wife does not
appear to be a very probable claim of
complainant and this Court would take
such kind of allegation only with a pinch
of salt. At any rate filing of the present
complaint was done when already the
criminal litigation against opposite party
had started at the initiation of applicant's
side, the refusal of the husband to
maintain his wife having resulted in filing
of the maintenance suit under section 125
Cr.P.C. while the ill-treatment that was
meted out to the wife had prompted her to
get the process of law started against
husband and other in-laws. The factum of
the the initiation of these criminal
proceedings against the husband side is a
proven fact and is not a matter of dispute
and therefore the submission made by the
counsel in this regard that the present
complaint with such kind of improbable
allegations was prompted by nothing
except malice appears to have substance.
It is not difficult to see through the
oblique motive which inspired the filing
of the complaint and it is not difficult to
infer that motives out of ire and
vengeance and mala fides are at the back
3 All. Muttan & Ors.Vs. The State of U.P.& Anr.
51
of initiation of these proceedings under
challenge.

6. In this regard it may be useful to
keep in perspective the law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992
SCC(Cr.)
426,
in
which
certain
categories have been recognized on the
basis of which the criminal proceeding
against a certain party or the accused may
be quashed. It was observed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case
as follows:-

"The following categories can
be stated by way of illustration wherein
the extra-ordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
can be exercised by the High Court 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 F.I.R.
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
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.

(5) where the allegations made
in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground
for
proceeding
against
the
accused.

(6) where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted)
to
the
institution
and
continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the
Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.

(7) where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or
where
the
proceeding
is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due
to private and personal grudge."
52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. In the considered view of this
Court this matter falls in category no.(7)
mentioned hereinabove. This Court finds
reason to hold that the complaint in
question is inspired by malice and the
version contained therein is full of high
improbabilities and the continuation of
the proceedings on that basis is likely to
result in abuse of court's process, and
therefore,
the
entire
proceeding
of
complaint in question is liable to be
quashed.

8. In this view of the matter this
application is allowed and the entire
proceedings of complaint in question
against
the
accused-applicants
stand
quashed.

9. A copy of this order be certified
to the lower court concerned forthwith.

9. A copy of this order be certified
to the lower court concerned forthwith.
----------
(2019)11ILR A52

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHREY , J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.7093 of 2006
u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Aijaz Gaffar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, Sri Ravi Kumar
Pandey.

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.
A.
Criminal
Law-Criminal
Procedure
Code, 1973 - Complaint Case - Section
482, Cr.P.C. - Defence of accused cannot
be considered by the Court at this stage
being a disputed question of facts. No
illegality in issuing summons against the
applicant specially when the complaint
has been filed by a public servant while
discharging his official duty and there
are sufficient ground to proceed against
the applicant in the case based on
material
available
before
the
court
below. (Para 12 & 13)

B. Special Act and General Act - Both
would apply. The Magistrate can take
cognizance for the offence under Indian
Penal Code on the basis of police report
without
awaiting
the
receipt
of
complaint that can be filed by the officer
concerned
for
taking
cognizance
regarding contravention of provisions of
the Special Act.

FIR alleging offence under the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. Arising from one occurrence,
complaint lodged alleging commission of offence
under the Factories Act, 1948 - Sections 92 read
with Sections 31 & 29, read with Rules 56, 55A
and 107 (2) of the Rules of 1950-FIR lodged
alleging offence under Section 304A IPC. The
FIR is lodged under Section 304A IPC for
"causing death by negligence" by the wife of
deceased employee and the complaint has been
filed against the applicant under Factories Act for
not observing requisite safety measures at the
factory. (Para 15)
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C rejected (E-3)

Case law relied/discussed: -

1. St. of Guj. Vs Afroz Mohammad (Crl
App.No.224/2019) dated 05.02.2019; 2019
SCC Online SC 132

2. Application u/s 482 No.16700 of 2019
(Imran and 3 ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.) order
dated 10.7.2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J. )