# Pappu v. State of U.P. & Anr. 312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 311
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-15
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No.10015 of 2009
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pappu-v-state-of-u-p-anr-312-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-47583
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 363, 366 -
inherent powers of the High Court can be
exercised to prohibit the abuse of process
of Court - maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive should not be allowed to
continue.(Para -5,6 )

Victim's father lodged an FIR - allegation -
minor daughter gone to ease herself out -
enticed away by applicant - filed charge-sheet
under duress without even recording statement
of victim - abuse of process of Court is apparent
on its face - statement of the victim under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. never recorded - impugned
charge sheet clearly a misuse of process of
Court .(Para - 3,4,7)

HELD:- Permitting the criminal proceedings,
which have been maliciously instituted with
ulterior motive against the applicant and it shall
be nothing but the abuse of process of Court
needs to be interfered by this Court. Case falls
within the four walls of Section 482 Cr.P.C. .
Proceedings of Criminal Case pending in the
Court of C.J.M. are quashed.(Para -9,10 )

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

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

3 All. Pappu Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
311
been dismissed by the High Court as nonmaintainable by holding that the petitioners
have suppressed the material facts, i.e.
filing of four writ petitions on the same
cause of action. The validity of that order
was challenged before the Apex Court. The
Apex Court dismissed the appeal with costs
of Rs. 50,000/-. The Court held as under:

"A writ remedy is equitable
one. Any person approaching a superior
court must come with a pair of clean
hands. It neither should suppress any
material fact, but also should not take
recourse to the legal proceedings over
and over again which amounts to abuse
of the process of law.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For
the
reasons
aforementioned, there is no merit in this
appeal which is dismissed accordingly
with costs. Counsel's fee quantified at
Rs. 50,000/-"

14. In K.D Sharma Vs. Steel
Authority of India Limited and others,
(2008)12 SCC481, Supreme Court held that
no litigant can play "hide and seek" with the
courts or adopt "pick and choose". To hold a
writ of the court one should come with
candid facts and clean breast. Suppression or
concealment of material facts is forbidden to
a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy.
In such cases the Court is duty bound to
discharge rule nisi and such applicant is
required to be dealt with for contempt of
Court for abusing the process of the court.

15. Supreme Court in Dalip Singh Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010)2
SCC
114
came
down
heavily
on
unscrupulous litigants by holding that it is
now well established that a litigant who
attempts to pollute the stream of justice or
who touches the pure fountain of justice with
tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief,
interim or final.

16. Having considered the factual
aspect of the case and the dictum of the
Supreme Court, I am of the considered view
that the applicant has misused the process of
law by filing successive applications before
this Court suppressing the material facts and
documents and misled the Court. Honesty,
fairness, purity of mind should be of the
highest order to approach the court, failing
which the litigant should be shown the exit
door at the earliest point of time.

17. In view of the verbose discussion,
the application is rejected with costs, which is
quantified at Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five
thousand only) to be deposited by the
applicant within one month with the Registrar
General of this Court, failing which the same
shall be recovered from the applicant as
arrears of land revenue. After deposit of the
amount, the Registrar General shall forward
the same to the account of Rajkiya Bal Greh
Shishu, Allahabad being Account No.
3785336735, State Bank of India, Khuldabad
Branch,
Prayagraj,
IFSC
Code
SBI
N0002560, Micro Code 211002015, which
shall be used for the welfare of the children.
----------
(2022)03ILR A311
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No.10015 of 2009

Pappu ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri V.P. Singh Kashyap

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

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 363, 366 -
inherent powers of the High Court can be
exercised to prohibit the abuse of process
of Court - maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive should not be allowed to
continue.(Para -5,6 )

Victim's father lodged an FIR - allegation -
minor daughter gone to ease herself out -
enticed away by applicant - filed charge-sheet
under duress without even recording statement
of victim - abuse of process of Court is apparent
on its face - statement of the victim under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. never recorded - impugned
charge sheet clearly a misuse of process of
Court .(Para - 3,4,7)

HELD:- Permitting the criminal proceedings,
which have been maliciously instituted with
ulterior motive against the applicant and it shall
be nothing but the abuse of process of Court
needs to be interfered by this Court. Case falls
within the four walls of Section 482 Cr.P.C. .
Proceedings of Criminal Case pending in the
Court of C.J.M. are quashed.(Para -9,10 )

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

List of Cases cited:-

1. Ahmad Ali Quraishi & anr. Vs St. of U. P. &
anr., (2020) 13 SCC 435

2. Vineet Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
(2017) 13 SCC 369

3. St. of Har. & Ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors. 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. Heard Sri V.P. Singh Kashyap,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for
the State.

2. The present application has been
filed with the prayer for quashing the
Criminal Case No. 605 of 2007 pending in
the Court of C.J.M. Badaun, State vs.
Pappu in Case Crime No. 9 of 2007 u/s
363, 366 IPC, P.S. Kunwargaon, DistrictBadaun.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
the victim's father, Prem Pal Sharma S/o
Mahavir Prasad had lodged an FIR at P.S.
Kunwargaon, District Badaun alleging that
on 25.12.2006 at 5.00 pm, when his minor
daughter had gone to ease herself out, she
was enticed away by the applicant with the
help of Sanjeev and Smt. Madhuri. It was
further alleged that his minor daughter
could not be found thereafter. The FIR was
lodged after a delay of about one month i.e.
on 21.1.2007.

4. The learned counsel for the
applicant has alleged that the investigating
officer, in collusion with the informant, has
filed a charge-sheet under duress without
even recording the statement of victim. It is
pertinent to mention here that the statement
of the victim was recorded after the
intervention of the High Court vide its
order dated 25.8.2008. The statement of
victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
on 25.8.2008, which is annexed as
Annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying
the application, categorically states that the
age of the victim is 24 years and she has
gone out of her own sweet will with the
applicant Pappu, and she got married with
him on 6.1.2007. That she is living with her
husband Pappu (applicant) and a son is
born out of the wedlock. She has also
categorically stated that her father was
against her husband marrying her and has
3 All. Pappu Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
313
lodged false FIR out of the vengeance. She
wants to live with her husband. She should
not be separated from her husband and
child. Her husband has been falsely
implicated in the case.

5. It has been opined in Ahmad Ali
Quraishi and another vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another, (2020) 13 SCC 435
that the inherent powers of the High Court
can be exercised to prohibit the abuse of
process of Court. Paragraph 10 of the
judgment is being reproduced hereinunder:-

"10. Before we enter into facts of
the present case and submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties, it is
necessary to look into the scope and ambit
of inherent jurisdiction which is exercised
by the High Court Under Section 482
CrPC. This Court had the occasion to
consider the scope and jurisdiction of
Section 482 CrPC. This Court in State of
Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors.,
1992 suppl. (1) SCC 335, had elaborately
considered the scope and ambit of Section
482 CrPC/Article 226 of the Constitution in
the context of quashing the criminal
proceedings. In para 102, this Court
enumerated seven categories of cases
where power can be exercised under
Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482
CrPC by the High Court for quashing the
criminal proceedings. Para 102 is as
follows:

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
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
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 the 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 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 malafide 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.

6. The Apex Court has opined in
Vineet Kumar and others vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another, (2017) 13
SCC 369 that the proceeding maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive should
not be allowed to continue. The relevant
paragraph
23
is
being
reproduced
hereinunder :-

"23. This Court time and again
has examined scope of jurisdiction of High
Court Under Section 482 CrPC and laid
down several principles which govern the
exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court
under Section 482 CrPC. A three-Judge
Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v.
L. Muniswamy and Ors., 1977 (2) SCC
699, held that the High Court is entitled 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 that the ends of justice
require that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. In para 7 of the judgment, the
following has been stated:

7....In
the
exercise
of
this
wholesome power, the High Court is
entitled 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 that the ends of
justice require that the proceeding ought to
be quashed. The saving of the High Court's
inherent powers, both in civil and criminal
matters, is designed to achieve a salutary
public purpose which is that a court
proceeding ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or
persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled
object behind a lame prosecution, the very
nature of the material on which the
structure of the prosecution rests and the
like would justify the High Court in
quashing the proceeding in the interest of
justice. The ends of justice are higher than
the ends of mere law though justice has got
to be administered according to laws made
by the legislature. The compelling necessity
for making these observations is that
without a proper realisation of the object
and purpose of the provision which seeks to
save the inherent powers of the High Court
to do justice, between the State and its
subjects, it would be impossible to
appreciate the width and contours of that
salient jurisdiction."

7. In the instant case, the abuse of
process of Court is apparent on its face as
the statement of the victim under Section
164 Cr.P.C. was never recorded and had
she been a minor, the matter of her consent
would have paled into insignificance, but
she has categorically stated in her statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she is major
and the same fact has been substantiated by
3 All. Virendra Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
315
the age certificate filed by the applicant
certified by the C.M.O. Budaun which
states that her age on 4.10.2008 was 22
years. Thus, her age on the date of
occurrence cannot be less than twenty
years. Hence, she is major and has attained
the age of consent. The impugned charge
sheet is clearly a misuse of process of
Court and the prosecution lodged therein
cannot be allowed to be continued.

8. The subject matter of the present
case falls under category ''(7)' of the State
of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and
Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

9. In view of the foregoing
discussions, this Court is of the view that
permitting the criminal proceedings, which
have been maliciously instituted with
ulterior motive against the applicant and it
shall be nothing but the abuse of process of
Court needs to be interfered by this Court.
This case falls within the four walls of
Section 482 Cr.P.C.

10. The proceedings of Criminal Case
No. 605 of 2007 pending in the Court of
C.J.M. Badaun, State vs. Pappu, in Case
Crime No. 9 of 2007 u/s 363, 366 IPC, P.S.
Kunwargaon, District-Badaun are quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
----------
(2022)03ILR A315
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Application U/S 482 No.14051 of 2008

Virendra Kumar Sharma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Manoj Kumar Rai, Sri K.C. Tripathi

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

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian
Penal
Code,
1860
-
The
Negotiable
instruments Act, 1981- Section 138 -
Dishonour of cheque , Section 145 -
Evidence on affidavit , Section 145(1) -
evidence of complainant may be given by
him on affidavit,and for summoning of
accused under Section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act, recording of statements
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., is not
required. (Para - 10)

Complaint under Section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act - ground of challenge -
without recording statements of opposite
party No. 2 and witnesses - under sections
200 and 202 Cr.P.C. - summoning order
passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate - entire
proceeding of impugned complaint case -
pending against applicant - bad in the eye
of law - hence present application. (Para -
3,4 )

HELD:-Even on the basis of affidavit filed on
behalf of the complainant, an accused can
be summoned under Section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act and there is no need to
record statements under Sections 200 and
202 Cr.P.C. . No illegality committed by
learned trial court while passing summoning
order against the applicant. (Para -13,14 )

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:-

In Re.: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section
138 N.I. Act 1881 , AIR 2021 Supreme Court
1957

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sameer Jain, J.)