# Praveen Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 551
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-02
- **Case number:** Appl. U/s 482 No. 8755 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/praveen-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-opp-parties-47931
- **Pages:** 32

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law
-Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 326, 307,
323,
324,
504
&
506-Quashing
of
summoning order-In the present case,
opposite party has not approached the
Court with clean hands-initially agreeing
amicably
settle
the
disputes,
later
changed his stand, exerted pressure
upon the Court to decide the matter
finally and approached the Apex Court
without waiting for final decision in the
matter-applicants who are victimized on
false accusations due to personal grudge
of opposite party who managed the FIR
and other documents at Bijnor while he
was present at Dehradun-FIR had been
lodged for settling money dispute-Thus,
it is a fit case for exercising power u/s
482 Cr.P.C. keeping in mind that no
greater damage can be done to the
reputation of a person than dragging
him in a criminal cases, continuance of
prosecution would be nothing but an
abuse of process of law.(Para 1 to 84)

B. It is settled canon of law that the
Court has inherent powers to prevent
the abuse of its own processes, that this
Court shall not suffer a litigant utilizing
the institution of justice for unjust
means. Thus, it would be only proper for
the Court to deny any relief to a litigant
who attempts to pollute the stream of
justice by coming to it with his unclean
hands. Similarly, a litigant pursuing
frivolous
and
vexatious
proceedings
cannot claim unlimited right upon court
time and public money to achieve his
ends.(Para 79)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,866 of 108,671. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39866 for what follows._

12 All. Praveen Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
551
be
of
any
application
wherein
the
delinquent employee gets exonerated in
departmental proceedings and he is facing
departmental proceedings and criminal
proceedings.

26. In view thereof, I am of the view
that the whole premise of the learned
counsel for the accused-applicant that since
the accused-applicant has been acquitted in
the departmental proceedings, the criminal
proceedings are to be quashed, has no merit
and substance and, thus, this application is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 551
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Appl. U/s 482 No. 8755 of 2022

Praveen Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Nipun Singh, Sri Vivek Chaubey

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A., Sri Amit Rai, Sri Atharva Dixit, Sri Aushim
Luthra, Sri Imran Ullah, Sri Sanjeev Kumar
Yadav, Sri Manish Kumar Vikkey, Sri Rajiv
Nanda, Sr. Advocate

A. Criminal Law
-Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 326, 307,
323,
324,
504
&
506-Quashing
of
summoning order-In the present case,
opposite party has not approached the
Court with clean hands-initially agreeing
amicably
settle
the
disputes,
later
changed his stand, exerted pressure
upon the Court to decide the matter
finally and approached the Apex Court
without waiting for final decision in the
matter-applicants who are victimized on
false accusations due to personal grudge
of opposite party who managed the FIR
and other documents at Bijnor while he
was present at Dehradun-FIR had been
lodged for settling money dispute-Thus,
it is a fit case for exercising power u/s
482 Cr.P.C. keeping in mind that no
greater damage can be done to the
reputation of a person than dragging
him in a criminal cases, continuance of
prosecution would be nothing but an
abuse of process of law.(Para 1 to 84)

B. It is settled canon of law that the
Court has inherent powers to prevent
the abuse of its own processes, that this
Court shall not suffer a litigant utilizing
the institution of justice for unjust
means. Thus, it would be only proper for
the Court to deny any relief to a litigant
who attempts to pollute the stream of
justice by coming to it with his unclean
hands. Similarly, a litigant pursuing
frivolous
and
vexatious
proceedings
cannot claim unlimited right upon court
time and public money to achieve his
ends.(Para 79)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. St. of M.P. Vs Kalyan Singh (2019) 4 SCC 268

2. Harshendra Kumar D. Vs Rebatilata Koley
&ors. (2011) 3 SCC 351

3. St. of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan & ors. (2019) 5
SCC 688

4. Chandran Ratnaswami Vs K.C. Palanisamy
(2011) 3 SCC 351

5. Rajesh Tiwari & ors. Vs Nandkishor Roy
(2010) 8 SCC 442

6. Dr. Monica Kumar & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. (2008) AIR SCW 4618

7. R.P. Kapur Vs St. of Punj. (1960) 3 SCR 388
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. Janta Dal Vs H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC
305

9. Raghubir Saran (Dr) Vs St. of Bih. (1964) 2
SCR 366

10. St. of Karnataka Vs M. Devendrappa
(2002) JT 1 SC 213

11. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Md.
Sarful Haque (2004) 9 SC 486

12. Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan Vs Ramgopal
Poddar & anr. (2010) 10 SCC 676

13. St. of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp 1
SCC 335

14. St. of W.B. Vs Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights, W.B. (2010) 3 SCC 571

15. Hareram Satpathy Vs Tikaram Agrawala &
ors. (1978) 4 SCC 58

16. Nupur Talwar Vs CBI, Delhi & anr. (2012) 2
SCC 188

17. CBI Vs Ravi Shankar Srivastava IAS &
anr.(2006) 7 SCC 188

18. St. of Ori. Vs Debendra NathPadi (2005) 1
SCC 568

19. Ramveer Upadhyay & anr. Vs St. of U.P &
anr. (2022) SCC Online SC 484

20. Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan Vs St. (Govt. of
Nct of Delhi) & anr. (2022) SCC Online SC 513

21. Md. Allauddin Khan Vs St. of Bih. & ors.
(2019) 0 Supreme SC 454

22. Rajeev Kaurav Vs Balasahad & ors. (2020) 0
Supreme SC 143

23. St. of Karnataka Vs L. Muniswamy &ors.
(1977) 2 SCC 699

24. St. of Haryana &ors. Vs Bhajan Lal &ors.
(1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335

25. Dr. Monica Kumar & anr. Vs St. of UP ors.
(2003) AIR SCW 4618
26. CBI Vs Ravi Shankar Srivastava (2006) 7
SCC 1888 Act anr.

27. Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan Vs St. (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) & anr. (2022) SCC Online SC 513

28. Prashant Bharti Vs St. of NCT of Delhi
(2013) 9 SCC 293

29. Parbatbhai Ahir Vs St. of Guj. (2017) 9 SCC
641

30. St. of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (1992) AIR
604,

31. Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs St. (Govt of NCT
of Delhi) AIR (2019) SC 210 : 2018 SCC Online
SC 2447

32. IOC Vs NEPC India Ltd. & ors. (2006) 6 SCC
736

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Nipun Singh and Mr.
Vivek Chaubey, learned counsel for the
applicants,
Mr.
Rajiv
Nanda,
Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Manish Kumar
Vikkey, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav and Mr.
Amit Rai, learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan,
learned AGA for the State and perused the
records.

2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash
the summoning order dated 07.03.2022
passed
by Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.1, District-Bijnor as
well as the entire proceedings of F.R. Case
No.63/2021
(Misc.
Case
No.87/2022)(Pramod Kumar Baliyan vs.
Praveen Singh and others), arising out of
Case Crime No.419/2021, under Sections
326, 307, 323, 324, 504, 506, 120B IPC,
Police
Station-Haldaur,
District-Bijnor,
pending before the court of learned
12 All. Praveen Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
553
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.1, District-Bijnor.

3. For the dispute between the parties,
an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2
through an application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. moved on 22nd November, 2022. The
present case was presented on 26th March,
2022 and came up before the Court for
argument for the first time on 20th April,
2022. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
after hearing the matter at length passed the
following order on 20th April, 2022:-

"Heard
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants, Sri Imran Ullah, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 learned
A.G.A. for State and perused the material
on record.

In view of submissions made by
learned counsel for the applicants, matter
requires consideration.

Opposite party no.2 may file counter
affidavit within one week. Rejoinder
affidavit, if any, may be filed within one
week thereafter.

Put up this case on 10.05.2022 as
fresh."

4. On the next date, i.e. 08.07.2022, as the
parties were ready to amicably settle the dispute,
therefore, the following order was passed:-

"Put up as fresh on 18.07.2022 at
02.00 p.m.

Till 18.07.2022, no coercive action
shall be taken against the applicants in F.R.
Case No. 63 of 2021 (Misc. Case No. 87 of
2022) arising out of Case Crime No. 419 of
2021 under sections 326, 307, 323, 324,
504, 506 and 120-B IPC, Police Station
Haldaur, District Bijnor."

5. On 18th July, 2022, the case was
adjourned on the request of learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2, therefore, the
following order was passed:-

"Mr. Atharva Dixit, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Manish Tiwari, learned
Senior Counsel for opposite party no.2
submits that Mr. Senior counsel is engaged
in some other Court, therefore, the matter
may be posted for 25.07.2022.

As prayed, put up as fresh on
25.07.2022 at 2:00 PM.

Interim order, if any, is extended till
the next date of listing."

6. On 25th July, 2022, the applicant
nos.1, 2 and 4 as well as opposite party
no.2 were present and after hearing their
respective counsels, the following order
was passed in their presence:-

"Heard Mr. Nipun Singh and Mr. Vivek
Chaubey,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants, Mr. Manish Tiwari, Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Atharva Dixit,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2
and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, learned
A.G.A. for the State.

Today, Mr. Pramod Kumar Baliyan,
opposite party no.2 is present before this
Court. Applicant no.1 Praveen Singh,
applicant
no.2
Virendra
Singh
and
applicant no.4 Jubair are also present
before this Court and have been identified
by their respective counsels.

Learned counsels for the parties state
that the parties are ready to settle the
dispute amicably, therefore, the matter may
be posted for 3rd of August, 2022.

Put up this matter as fresh on
03.08.2022 at 2:00 PM in Chamber.

The applicants as well as opposite
party no.2 shall be present before this
Court on the next date i.e. 03.08.2022.

The applicant nos.1, 2 and 4 will
inform about this order to applicant no.3
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that he has to be present before this Court
on the next date fixed.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive
action shall be taken against the applicants
in Case Crime No.419 of 2021, under
Sections 326, 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 and
120B
I.P.C.,
Police
Station-Haldaur,
District Bijnor."

7. Again on 03rd August, 2022, the
following order was passed:-

"Heard Mr. Nipun Singh and Mr. Vivek
Chaubey,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants and Mr. Atharva Dixit, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr.
Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the
State.

On the last occasion, i.e 25.07.2022,
the applicants as well as opposite party
no.2 were directed to be present before this
Court as the parties had agreed to
amicably settle the dispute.

Today, in compliance of the earlier
order dated 25.07.2022, the applicants,
namely, Praveen Singh, Virendra Singh,
Arun Khanna and Jubair are present before
this Court, who have been identified and
their signatures have also been attested by
their counsel.

However, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 informs that a message
has been sent to him through E-mail stating
therein that the opposite party no.2 is
suffering from spinal injuries and has been
advised for bed rest till 12.08.2022, therefore,
he is unable to appear before this Court. In
the said message, he has also mentioned that
five days back, he had requested to elder
brother of applicant, namely, Mr. Zubair to
withdraw the complaints, which have been
filed by them and their associates against him
before the court of ADJ-VII, Dehradun, the
S.P., Bijnor, the court of ADJ-III, Dehradun
and Bar Council of Uttarakhand. He has also
mentioned that his request was denied by
elder brother of applicant, namely, Mr.
Zubair and expressed his view as to how
compromise could be possible in such a
situation.

The applicants, who are present before
this Court, have given their explanation for
denying to withdraw the case stating that, as
agreed, the memorandum of understanding
for settlement in the matter was to be placed
before this Court after which the cases were
to be withdrawn, therefore, there was no
question of conceding to the request made by
the opposite party no.2 for withdrawal of the
case as that would have amounted to
disrespect of the Court.

In such situation, on the request of
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2,
put up this case as fresh on 24.08.2022 at
02:00 p.m. in Chamber.

The applicants as well as opposite party
no.2 shall be present before this Court on the
next date fixed, i.e. 24.08.2022.

In case, the opposite party no.2 does not
turn up on that date, the Court will proceed
to hear this matter taking cognizance of the
fact that the opposite party no.2 had given his
consent for settlement of the matter in order
to get case withdrawn against him.

It is made clear that the Court had
directed the parties to be present before this
Court today so that all the deliberations
regarding compromise may be made before
this Court, for the same reason, the parties
are directed to be present on the next date
fixed.

Interim order, granted earlier, is
extended till the next date of listing.

This order has been passed in the
presence of learned counsel for the parties
as well as applicants, who are present
before this Court."

8. On 24th August, 2022, as the
counsel for the opposite party no.2
12 All. Praveen Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
555
informed that opposite party was not
willing to settle the dispute, therefore, on
24.08.2022, a detailed order was passed
and the matter was posted for 28.09.2022 at
02:00 p.m. to be heard on merits. The order
dated 24.08.2022 is as follows:-

"The lawyers are abstaining from
work due to strike.

The matter is being taken up in
Chamber as parties are present as directed
by order dated 03.08.2022.

Pursuant
to
the
order
dated
03.08.2022, the applicants namely, Praveen
Singh, Virendra Singh, Arun Khanna and
Jubair are present before this Court, in
Chamber.

The opposite party no.2, Mr. Pramod
Kumar Baliyan is also present.

The applicants as well as opposite
party no.2 cannot be identified as the
lawyers are on strike today and are not
appearing before the Court.

The opposite party no.2 submits that
he has changed his counsel and has
engaged some other counsel but the
Vakalatnama of the newly engaged counsel
is not on record. He further submits that he
does not want to compromise with the
applicants in the present case.

Earlier,
on
08.07.2022,
learned
counsel for the parties had taken time to
inquire from their respective clients as to
whether they want to amicably settle the
dispute which is between a senior lawyer
and junior lawyer as well as law students.
Therefore, the matter was posted for the
next date i.e. 18.07.2022 and interim
protection was given to the applicants. On
18.07.2022, on the request of learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2, the
matter was posted for 25.07.2022.

Lastly, when the matter was again
posted for 25.07.2022, Mr. Pramod Kumar
Baliyan, opposite party no.2 was present in
person and was ready to amicably settle the
dispute, hence, the matter was posted for
03.08.2022 as one of the applicants,
applicant no.3 Mr. Arun Khanna, was not
present on that date. On 03.08.2022, the
opposite party no.2 was not present before
this Court due to reasons as mentioned in
the order dated 03.08.2022.

The applicants present before this
Court, inform that opposite party no.2 has
moved an application before concerned
S.S.P. for lodging frivolous case against
them, after order dated 03.08.2022.

The statement of the opposite party
no.2 goes to show that he avoided the
Court on 03.08.2022 in order to buy time to
move an application before the S.S.P.
concerned against the applicants.

In view of above, let the matter be
posted as fresh on 29.08.2022 at 2:00 PM
to be heard on merits.

Interim order, granted earlier, is
extended till the next date of listing."

9. On 29th August, 2022, the matter
was heard at length and in order to bring all
the affidavits on record as filed by the
parties, the matter was posted for further
hearing on 05.09.2022 and case was finally
heard on merits.

10. Brief facts as placed by the learned
counsel for the applicants are that for the
incident alleged to have occurred on
08.11.2021, an FIR was lodged by opposite
party no.2, namely, Pramod Kumar Baliyan,
which was registered as Case Crime No.419
of 2021, under Sections 386, 120B, 326, 307,
323, 324, 504, 506 IPC, Police StationHaldaur, District-Bijnor on 02.12.2021. The
aforesaid case was lodged at the instance of
opposite party no.2 by way of application
filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on
22.11.2021. As per the FIR, Pramod Kumar
Baliyan aged about 52 years, permanent
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
resident of Village-Murliwala, Police StationAfzalgarh, District-Bijnor, is practicing at
Dehradun. The applicants, namely, Zubair
Ahmed (Applicant No.4), Praveen Singh
(Applicant No.1), Virendra Singh (Applicant
No.2) used to give cases to the opposite party
no.2 on commission basis since last so many
years. On account of lockdown and closure of
courts, they could not provide cases on
commission basis to opposite party no.2. The
aforesaid
applicants
misbehaved
with
opposite party no.2 forcing him to pay
advance money to them and when the
opposite party no.2 failed to provide money,
they extended life threat to opposite party
no.2 and Arun Khanna (applicant no.3) and
co-accused-Ehatsam Ansari also extended
help to the aforesaid applicants in extending
life threat to the opposite party no.2. It has
further been alleged that in the morning of
08.11.2021, opposite party no.2 along with
one Rakesh Kumar, resident of Village
Murliwala, Police Station-Afzalgarh, DistrictBijnor was going to Village Nangaljat, at
about 05:00 a.m., when the opposite party
no.2 reached near Village Bhagawa, he was
chased by one Sky Blue Santro Car bearing
registration No.UK 7 BA 0170. After
stopping the opposite party no.2, the
aforesaid five persons, namely, Jubair
(applicant no.4), resident of Lakkhibagh
Colony, Dehradun, Praveen Singh (applicant
no.1), resident of Bhagat Singh Colony,
Dehradun, Virendra Singh (applicant no.2),
resident of Alakhnanda Vidarland No.1,
Nakrauda, Dehradun, Ehatsan Ansari (coaccused), resident of Azad Colony, Near 15
BT, Dehradun and Arun Khanna (applicant
no.3), resident of 31, Chander Nagar,
Dehradun, came out of the car and Zubair
(applicant no.4) fired upon the opposite party
no.2, which was fortunately missed, then,
Ehatsam Ansari, after taking the countrymade
pistol from Zubair again fired upon him after
reloading the country made pistol. Praveen
Singh (applicant no.1) also assaulted multiple
times over the head and chest of opposite
party no.2 by khookri, in which opposite
party no.2 sustained deep wound on the head
and cut on his chest. Virendra Singh
(applicant no.2) assaulted the opposite party
no.2 by baseball stick, hitting on his nose,
resulting into fracture of his nose bone. On
hue and cry being raised by opposite party
no.2, people from nearby, namely Moola
Singh son of Balvir Singh, resident of Village
Ravti, Rakesh Kumar, Manoj Kumar sons of
Shyam Lal, resident of Village Nangaljat,
Dalvir Singh son of Balraj Singh, resident of
Village Agupura, District Bijnor came on the
spot. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 was
brought to the Government Hospital, Kotwali
Dehat, where he was medically treated and
was, later on, referred to District Bijnor. The
x-ray of his head, nose and hand was
conducted wherein his nose bone was found
to be fractured.

11. For the aforesaid incident, an
application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed
before the court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor on 22.11.2021 and
the court concerned directed the concerned
SHO of Police Station-Haldaur to conduct an
inquiry and submit the report. The report
dated 26.11.2021 was submitted by the
concerned SHO, perusal of which goes to
show that the villagers of Vill-Bhagawa
stated that no such incident had taken place,
informing the concerned Inspector that in
case, any such incident of using firearm
would have taken place, the villagers would
have come to know about the same on
hearing noise of the firearms.

12.

The
concerned
Magistrate
ignoring the said police report directed for
registering the case, hence the FIR was
registered on 02.12.2021 as Case Crime
No.419 of 2021 against as many as five
12 All. Praveen Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
557
named accused persons including the
present applicants and co-accused Ehatsam
Ansari. The investigating officer, after
carrying
out
thorough
investigation,
considering the statements of the villagers
and the call details of the applicants as well
as alleged witnesses, submitted final
report/closure report on 29.12.2021, against
which a protest petition was filed, which
was accepted by the concerned court below
and
summoned
the
applicants
vide
impugned order dated 07.03.2022, under
Sections 326, 307, 323, 324, 506, 120B
IPC. Hence, this application has been filed.

13. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that the opposite party no.2 has
filed the present case in order to settle his
personal grudge and while arguing the
matter on merits, he has placed the detailed
facts, which is as under:-

a) An application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no.2
on 22.11.2021 for the incident dated
08.11.2021. On the aforesaid application,
the concerned Magistrate directed the SHO,
Police Station-Haldaur to conduct an
inquiry and submit a report. Thereafter, the
report so submitted by the Investigating
Officer on 26.11.2021, shows that no such
incident had taken place as narrated in the
application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by
the opposite party no.2. Ignoring the said
police report, learned court below has
directed for lodging of the FIR on which
the FIR came to be registered as Case
Crime No.419 of 2021 on 02.12.2021.

b) As per the prosecution case,
opposite party no.2 sustained as many as
five injuries as he was examined by one Dr.
Pramod Kumar at Primary Health Centre,
Kotwali Dehat, Bijnor at 6.35 AM on
08.11.2021. As per the medical report,
opposite party no.2 by himself went to the
doctor for his medical examination. There
is no whisper as to the role of Rakesh
Kumar, who was accompanying the
opposite party no.2 on motorcycle at the
time of incident.

c) As per the supplementary medical
report dated 12.11.2021, injury no.5 was
found to be grievous in nature and rest of
the injuries were found to be simple in
nature as opined by Dr. Pramod Kumar in
his supplementary medical report.

d) The Investigating Officer during the
course
of
investigation
recorded
the
statements of as many as 15 independent
witnesses, who are resident of the nearby
villages, where the alleged incident is said
to be taken place. The aforesaid witnesses
informed the Investigating Officer that no
such incidence as alleged by the opposite
party no.2 had ever taken place as it was
not possible that the villagers could not
hear the noise of firearm being used, that
too in the early morning. The statements of
four other witnesses, as mentioned in the
FIR, namely, Moola Singh, Rakesh Kumar,
Manoj Kumar and Dalvir Singh were also
recorded. The witness, Rakesh Kumar was
the one, who was going along with the
opposite party no.2 on his motorcycle and
the witness Moola Singh resident of Village
Ravti, P.S. Himpur Dipa, District Bijnor,
stated that he was going to his relative's
place at Village Takpura, Police Station
Haldaur, District Bijnor and while, he was
passing through Village Baghawa, the
alleged incident had taken place. Witness,
Manoj
Kumar,
resident
of
Village
Nangaljat, P.S. Haldaur, Bijnor, has stated
that he was going to his tubewell which is
near to village Baghawa on the main road,
when the aforesaid incident as alleged by
the opposite party no.2 had taken place.
The third witness Dalvir Singh, resident of
Village Agupura, P.S. Najibabad, District
Bijnor has stated that he was going to the
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
matrimonial home of his aunt's daughter at
about 5:00 AM, when he saw the alleged
incident. Therefore, the aforesaid three
witnesses including Rakesh Kumar, who
was accompanying the opposite party no.2
on
motorcycle
have
supported
the
prosecution case.

e) The Investigating Officer, after
completing the investigation, considering
the statements of independent witnesses
(villagers, who were residents of nearby
villages), considering the call details of
applicants, opposite party no.2 and his
alleged witnesses, did not find any credible
evidence regarding the fact that any such
incidence had taken place and submitted
the
final
report/closure
report
on
29.12.2021. The opposite party no.2
challenged the aforesaid final report by
filing protest petition and the court
concerned vide order dated 07.03.2022 has
rejected the final report and summoned the
applicants to face the trial u/s 326, 307,
323, 324, 506 and 120B IPC. Therefore, the
applicants have filed the present application
u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., whereby challenging the
said order including the entire proceedings
of instant case.

14. Learned counsel for the applicants
has challenged the aforesaid proceedings
on the following grounds:-

a) The criminal prosecution against the
applicants is a clear abuse of process of law
as the allegations made in the F.I.R. are so
absurd and inherently, improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach to a conclusion for proceedings
against the accused applicants.

b) Opposite Party no.2 has filed the
present case in order to settle his personal
vendetta out of sheer revenge and anguish
as applicants and other co accused Ehatsam
Ansari
Advocate
has
started
their
independent
practice
and
disowned
themselves from opposite party no.2. It is
admitted case of the opposite party no.2
that the applicants and other co-accused
persons used to give cases to him on
commission basis. It is when the applicants
started providing case to another counsel,
the opposite party no.2 being annoyed has
filed the aforesaid case in order to wreck
vengeance and harass the applicants. It
would be appropriate to quote paragraph
no.24 of the application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.,
which is reproduced herein below:-

"That the true fact is that the
applicant no.1, 2 and 3 were doing their
internship with the opposite party no.2
and during their internship, many cases
were referred to the opposite party no.2 by
them, which is also admitted by the
opposite party no.2 in the F.I.R., but
because of his bad behavior, the applicant
no.1, 2 and 3 have left opposite party no.2
and have joined the applicant no.4 for
their further internship, which was not
accepted by the opposite party no.2 and
further the opposite party no.2 was
regularly threatened the applicants to
implicate in a false case, which was
resulted into the implication of the
applicants in the present case as well as in
other several cases."

c) In the counter affidavit, the
contents of paragraph no.24 have been
replied in the said manner, which is
reproduced herein below:-

"That the contents of paragraph
no.24 of the affidavit is partly correct
and partly denied because the applicants
used to refer cases to the deponent
however when the deponent was unable
to pay the applicants money owing to the
covid-19 pandemic the accused persons
12 All. Praveen Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
559
took the grave step and attacked him in
order to extort money."

d) The opposite party no.2 being the
permanent resident of District Dehradun,
having roaring practice at District Courts,
Dehradun, misused his power and post and
had got multiple F.I.R.s including the
present one lodged against the applicants
on totally false, incorrect and concocted
facts. The Aadhar card annexed by the
opposite party no.2 clearly shows that he is
the permanent resident of Dehradun and
just in order to file the present case he is
hiding
his
identity
showing
himself
permanent resident of District Bijnor.

e) All applicants and co-accused
Ehatsam Ansari Advocate are also the
permanent residents of Dehradun and they
have no concern in any manner from
District Bijnor, but in order to create a false
and fabricated case at Bijnor, a false story
has been manufactured to falsely implicate
the applicants by managing the chance
witnesses, doctor and as well as the
concerned court in lodging the present
F.I.R. against the applicants.

f) When all the parties are residing at
Dehradun, there was no point or occasion
to chase the opposite party no.2 to Bijnor
and commit the alleged crime. This shows
that district Bijnor has been chosen
intentionally and deliberately to harass the
applicants as it would be very difficult for
applicants to visit Bijnor and to contest the
cases over there as he threatened the
applicants to stop their practice.

g) In the alleged incident dated
08.11.2021, the opposite party no.2 as
alleged that he has sustained serious
injuries, but on the same day, not only the
presence of the opposite party no.2 was
recorded by the Additional District Judge,
Court No.3, Dehradun at Dehradun in
Misc. Case No.598/2021 and 629/2021, but
also his statement was duly recorded by the
court in its order dated 8.11.2021. This
clearly shows without any doubt that the
opposite party no.2 was present at District
Court, Dehradun on the date of alleged
incident and, therefore, it is highly
improbable that after having allegedly
sustained serious injuries, the opposite
party no.2 is working in the courts at
Dehradun.

h) The opposite party no.2 filed
multiple MACT cases in Dehradun MACT
on 09.11.2021, 10.11.2021, 11.11.2021,
12.11.2021, 15.11.2021, 16.11.2021 and
22.11.2021. The status of the cases filed by
the opposite party no.2 on 09.11.2021,
10.11.2021, 11.11.2021 and 15.11.2021
have been brought on record at page no.85
to 95 of the main application. The details of
cases filed by the opposite party no.2 are
reproduced herein below:-

a. CNR No.UKDD01-004860-2021
filed on 09.11.2021, before the 5th
Additional District Judge, Dehradun

b. CNR No.UKDD01-004896-2021
filed on 10.11.2021, before the District
Judge, Dehradun

c. CNR No.UKDD01-004894-2021
filed on 10.11.2021, before the 5th
Additional District Judge, Dehradun

d. CNR No.UKDD01-004940-2021
filed on 11.11.2021, before the 5th
Additional District Judge, Dehradun

e. CNR No.UKDD01-004939-2021
filed on 11.11.2021, before the 5th
Additional District Judge, Dehradun

f. CNR No.UKDD01-004998-2021
filed on 15.11.2021, before the 5th
Additional District Judge, Dehradun

g. CNR No.UKDD01-005009-2021
filed on 15.11.2021, before the 5th
Additional District Judge, Dehradun

h. CNR No.UKDD01-005030-2021
filed on 16.11.2021, before the 5th
Additional District Judge, Dehradun
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

i. CNR No.UKDD01-005175-2021
filed on 22.11.2021, before the 5th
Additional District Judge, Dehradun

j. CNR No.UKDD01-005177-2021
filed on 22.11.2021, before the 5th
Additional District Judge, Dehradun

i) The applicants have brought on record
the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the
court of 3rd Additional District Judge,
Dehradun, in which co-accused Ehatsam
Ansari Advocate filed application for release
of claim amount awarded to the claimant by
MAC Tribunal in case no.651/2021 being
application no.12C & 13C, which came to be
objected by the opposite party no.2 by filing
his detailed objection that without obtaining
NOC, co-accused Ehatsam Anwari has filed
his Vakalatnama and application for release
of Claim amount awarded to claimant.

j) The court of Additional District
Judge-III, Dehradun rejected the objections
of O.P no.2 by allowing the application
no.12C & 13C moved by co-accused
Ehatsam Ansari, Advocate by allowing him
to accept the awarded amount on behalf of
the claimant vide order dated 22.11.2022. In
the objections or in arguments before the
court of ADJ-III, Dehradun, the opposite
party no.2 did not disclose at all about any
such incident alleged to have taken place on
8.11.2021.

k) The aforesaid order dated 22.11.2021
prompted the opposite party no.2 to file an
application
u/s
156(3)
Cr.P.C
falsely
implicating the applicants and co-accused
Ehatsam Ansari Advocate, because on the
same day i.e. 22.11.2021, application u/s
156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the opposite
party no.2 before the court of 1st ACJM,
Bijnor, however again the presence of the
opposite party no.2 was recorded
at
Dehradun in order dated 22.11.2011.

l) Unfortunately, as soon as the
opposite party no.2 came to know that
investigation is going against him, he
lodged another FIR on 18.12.2021 arising
out of Case Crime No.853/2021, under
Sections 500, 501, 506 IPC and Section 67
of the I.T. Act, 2008 at P.S.-Kotwali,
District-Bijnor against all the applicants.
On 06.02.2022, another FIR was lodged by
the opposite party no.2 against the
applicants, registered as Case Crime
No.52/2022, under Sections 379, 382, 506,
120B IPC, P.S.-Noorpur, District-Bijnor,
showing the date of incident as 22.12.2021.
The aforesaid FIR was also lodged by the
opposite party no.2 in the similar fashion
wherein it has been alleged that the
opposite party no.2 was going alongwith
Rakesh Kumar on the motorcycle at about
2:00 PM on 22.12.2021. The applicants
again went all the way to District Bijnor
from Dehradun for settlement where Jubair
Ahmad (applicant no.4), Praveen Singh
(applicant no.1), Virendra Singh (applicant
no.2) and Arun Khanna (applicant no.3),
after breaking the diggi of motorcycle stole
Rs.18,000/- and after showing the country
made pistol, giving life threat to the
opposite party no.2 and Rakesh Kumar,
while running away, the applicants also
stole proofs, documents, pendrive relating
to the present case apart from Rs.18,000/-.
The opposite party no.2 further alleged that
the applicants threatened to kill him, his
witnesses and entire family, if all cases are
not withdrawn.

m) Another FIR came to be lodged as
Case Crime No.32/2022 at P.S. Rehar,
District Bijnor, under Sections 323, 324,
394, 504, 506 IPC lodged by Sri Hariom
Singh, on 11.03.2022 who is the junior of
opposite party no.2 and also filed the
objection on the release application of the
claim amount along with opposite party
no.2, which was decided on 22.11.2021, in
a similar fashion, the allegations are as
follows:-
12 All. Praveen Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
561

a. The complainant Hariom Singh
Advocate (junior of O.P no.2) was going to
Nainital along with his client Tejpal Singh,
where the applicants no.1, 2 and 4 chased the
car of complainant at about 4.30 AM on
02.02.2022 and the applicants no.1, 2 and 4
after coming out from the car, after snatching
Rs.30,000/-, assaulted Hariom by hitting
multiple times on his head and chest causing
deep wound.

b. Again in the similar fashion, the
complainant Sri Hariom, Advocate allegedly
went to the nearest hospital at Dhampur,
where the doctor was not available and
therefore, they went to the same Kotwali Dehat
Hospital, where the injuries of opposite party
no.2 was examined. A copy of the F.I.R. lodged
by Sri Hariom Singh has been annexed as
Annexure No.SA-6 to the supplementary
affidavit filed by the applicants.

n) It is pertinent to mention here that
Kotwali Dehat hospital is the same hospital
where opposite party no. 2 was also
medically examined.

o) On 04.01.2022, another criminal
complaint was filed against the applicants
before the same court of ACJM, Bijnor under
Sections 354B, 365, 376, 342, 504, 506 IPC
through one Rinki, wherein she alleged that
she was allegedly raped by applicants. The
aforesaid complaint dated 04.01.2022 has been
annexed as Annexure No.SA-6 to the
supplementary affidavit filed by the applicants.

p) The opposite party no.2 is hell-bent to
take revenge from the applicants as the
applicants have dared to change their choice
by engaging another counsel on commission
basis in place of opposite party no.2, for which
the opposite party no.2 has gone to the extent
of falsely implicating the applicants in several
cases.

15. Learned counsel for the applicants
has drawn the attention of the Court by
placing certain facts, pointing out the
conduct of opposite party no.2, while
appearing before this Court that this matter
came up for hearing before this Court on
20.04.2022 and while arguing the case, one
of the submissions of the counsel for the
applicants was that opposite party no.2 was
not only present in the District Court,
Dehradun but his statement was also
recorded in the court proceedings on the
date of occurrence, i.e. 08.11.2021 of
present alleged offence, which is not
possible as is evident from the copy of
proceedings of District Court, Dehradun in
Misc. Case Nos.598/2021, 629/2021 and
651/2021. The counsel for the opposite
party no.2, Mr. Imran Ullah informed the
court on the instructions of opposite party
no.2, who was also present in the court that
the said order has been corrected as there
was mistake in the order in recording the
presence and statement of opposite party
no.2 and on such statement, the Hon'ble
Court was pleased to grant one week time
to the opposite party no.2 to file counter
affidavit in light of the arguments advanced
before this Hon'ble Court by fixing the
matter on 10.05.2022 as fresh. The order
dated
20.04.2022
already
reproduced
herein above.

16. Unfortunately, the matter could
not be taken up on 10.05.2022 and finally,
the matter came up for hearing before this
Court on 08.07.2022, on which date, the
matter was argued at length, but as the
same could not be concluded, the Court
was pleased to fix the matter on 18.07.2022
at 2:00 PM on the request of the counsels
for both the parties, on which date, Mr.
Manish Tiwari, Senior Advocate, appeared
alongwith Atharv Dixit, Advocate after
replacing Sri Imran Ullah, Advocate, which
was for the reason that the statement given
by Sri Imran Ullah, Advocate, that the
order has been corrected on the instructions
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of opposite party no.2, was incorrect, which
is clear from the counter affidavit in which
after the order dated 20.04.2022 as
mentioned aforesaid, the opposite party
no.2 filed correction application through
his
junior
counsel
Sri
Hariom.
On
intervention by the Court, parties were
ready to settle the dispute amicably. In the
supplementary
affidavit
filed
by
the
applicants,
the
applicants
have
also
apprised the Court by filing Annexure
no.SA-1&2
that
the
applicants
are
objecting to the correction application and
the opposite party no.2 and his junior
counsel
is
avoiding
the
hearing
of
correction application. Relevant paragraphs
of the supplementary affidavit are being
reproduced hereunder:-

"3. That when it comes to the
knowledge of the applicants that the
opposite party no.2with the help of his
junior filed the aforesaid correction
application, then without any further
delay, on 17.05.2022, the applicants filed
their objection. A copy of the objection
filed by the applicants dated 17.05.2022 is
being annexed as Annexure No.SA-1 to
this Affidavit.
4. That after filing objection, the next date
fixed was 15.06.2022 and on 15.06.2022,
the
opposite
party
no.2
took
the
adjournment and the next date fixed was
19.07.2022, on which date again the
opposite
party
no.2
has
filed
his
adjournment. Copies of the order sheet
showing non-appearance of the opposite
party no.2 are collectively being annexed
as Annexure No.SA-2 to this Affidavit."

17. The aforesaid matter again came
up for hearing before the Hon'ble Court on
18.07.2022 on which date adjournment was
sought upon which the Hon'ble Court was
pleased to fix 25.07.2022. On 25.07.2022,
the matter was again heard by this Court
and during the course of arguments, both
the counsels requested the Court to mediate
the atter for amicable settlement of the
dispute. As all the parties, except applicant
no.3, were present before the Court during
the course of arguments and on the request
of counsels of both the parties, the matter
was placed on 03.08.2022 at 2:00 PM for
settlement. The said date was fixed as on
25.07.2022, as the applicant no.3 was not
present in the Court, otherwise the
compromise would have taken place on
25.07.2022
itself.
The
order
dated
25.07.2022
already
reproduced
hereinabove.

18. Learned counsel for the applicants
further submits that on 03.08.2022, the
matter again came up before the Court on
which date applicants were present in terms
of
the
order
dated 25.07.2022, but
deliberately opposite party no.2 did not
appear and sent e-mail through his counsel
Mr. Atharv Dixit that he is suffering from
spinal injuries and has been advised for bed
rest till 12.08.2022 and on his request, the
matter was again fixed for 24.08.2022.