# Raghvendra Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 355
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 2300 of 2016
- **Bench:** Sameer Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raghvendra-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49027
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 468,
471, 506 & 120B-Quashing of -Complaint
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as well as summoning order-the dispute
was regarding registered Will deed of the
deceased-the Registered Will was never
challenged by Opposite Party in any
competent civil court as there was no
evidence which indicate that the Will in
question was forged one-Opposite party
tried to negotiate the matter but could not
finalized then he lodged the complaint on
the basis of false allegation with malicious
intention only to harass the applicantTherefore the impugned complaint as well
as summoning order is quashed.(Para 1 to
33)

B. In the instant case, the Opposite party
had given the colour of criminal offence to
a
purely
civil
dispute.
As
per
the
allegation, on the basis of forged Will, the
mutation proceeding was ended in favour
of the applicants but there is no evidence
that the Will was forged one, therefore
only competent civil court could decide
the issue whether the Will in dispute was
forged one or not but opposite party did
not choose to file any suit for cancellation
of Will.(Para 28)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Raghvendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
355
examination on oath of any or some of the
witnesses cited by the complainant is, by
itself,
not
sufficient
to
denude
the
Magistrate of the jurisdiction to take
cognizance and issue of process provided
he is satisfied that prima facie case is made
out for doing so.

32. The complainant is not bound to
examine all the witnesses named in the
complaint or whose names are disclosed in
response to the order passed by the
Magistrate. Only those witnesses are
required to be examined whom the
complainant considers material to make out
a prima facie case for issuance of process.
Then the choice being of the complainant,
he may choose not to examine other
witnesses. Consequence of such nonexamination is to be considered at the trial
and not at the stage of issuing process when
the Magistrate is not required to enter into
detailed discussions on the merits or
demerits of the case. At the stage of taking
cognizance
and
issuing
process,
the
Magistrate has only to see whether there
exists sufficient ground or not.

33. Considering the proviso 2 of
Section
202
(2)
Cr.P.C.
and
the
judgments cited above, I am of the
considered view that the list of witnesses
can be called at later stage from the
complainant, if the learned Magistrate is
of the opinion that the offence is
exclusively triable by the Sessions Court
in order to examine the complainant
witnesses on oath to hold an enquiry
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. at the initial
stage, even if the list of witnesses are not
filed with the complaint/protest petition,
but on examination of the complainant
and the witnesses produced, learned
Magistrate is of the opinion that there is a
prima facie case against the accused, the
order passed by the learned Magistrate
would not get vitiated.

34. In the present case, learned
Magistrate
has
called
upon
the
complainant to furnish list of witnesses to
be examined on oath to hold an enquiry
as the offence is exclusively triable by the
Sessions Court, and this Court does not
find
that
learned
Magistrate
has
committed any error of law or jurisdiction
in doing so.

35. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, present petition being devoid
of
merit
and
substance
is
hereby
dismissed. If the petitioners surrender
before the trial Court and apply for
regular bail, their bail application(s)
should be considered expeditiously in
accordance with law.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 355
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 2300 of
2016

Raghvendra Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Narendra Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 468,
471, 506 & 120B-Quashing of -Complaint
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as well as summoning order-the dispute
was regarding registered Will deed of the
deceased-the Registered Will was never
challenged by Opposite Party in any
competent civil court as there was no
evidence which indicate that the Will in
question was forged one-Opposite party
tried to negotiate the matter but could not
finalized then he lodged the complaint on
the basis of false allegation with malicious
intention only to harass the applicantTherefore the impugned complaint as well
as summoning order is quashed.(Para 1 to
33)

B. In the instant case, the Opposite party
had given the colour of criminal offence to
a
purely
civil
dispute.
As
per
the
allegation, on the basis of forged Will, the
mutation proceeding was ended in favour
of the applicants but there is no evidence
that the Will was forged one, therefore
only competent civil court could decide
the issue whether the Will in dispute was
forged one or not but opposite party did
not choose to file any suit for cancellation
of Will.(Para 28)

The application is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. R.P. Kapur Vs St. of Punj. (1690) AIR SC 866

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

3. M/s Neeharika Infra. Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of Mah.
& ors. (2021) AIR SC 1918

4. ParbatbhaiAahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur & ors. Vs St. of Guj. &anr. (2017) 9
SCC 641

5. Kapil Agarwal & ors. Vs Sanjay Sharma & ors.
(2021) 5 SCC 524

6. G. Sagar Suri & anr.. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2000) 2 SCC 636

7. IOC Vs NEPC India Ltd & ors. (2006) 6 SCC
736
8. M. Subramaniam & anr. Vs S. Janki & anr.
(2020) 16 SCC 728

9. Inder Mohan Goswami & anr. Vs St. of
Uttaranchal & ors. (2007) 12 SCC 1

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

1. Despite service of notice upon
opposite party no.2, nobody appeared on
behalf of opposite party no.2.

2. Heard Sri N.K. Singh, learned
counsel for the applicants and Sri Arvind
Kumar, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicants to quash the Complaint Case No.
2439 of 2012 dated 05.07.2011 under
Sections 420, 468, 471, 506, 120B IPC
pending in the court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad as well as
summoning order dated 19.09.2012 and
order
dated
03.11.2015
passed
by
revisional court in Criminal Revision No.
308 of 2012.

4. The necessary facts of the case for
the purpose of present application is that
opposite party no.2, the complainant on
05.07.2011
filed
impugned
criminal
complaint against the applicants and Raj
Bahadur Singh (not applicant), the father of
applicant no.1 with the allegation that
opposite party no.2 is the son-in-law of
Vijay Bahadur Singh, the brother of Raj
Bahadur Singh (not applicant) and his
marriage was performed with the youngest
daughter of Vijay Bahadur Singh. It is
further alleged in the complaint that Raj
Bahadur
Singh
(not
applicant)
with
intention to grab the property of father-inlaw of opposite party no.2 executed a
forged registered Will of Vijay Bahdur
Singh (father-in-law of opposite party no.2
9 All. Raghvendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
357
and brother of Raj Bahdur Singh) on
30.11.2000 in favour of his grand sons,
namely Rohit Bhadauriya and Mohit
Bhadauriya under the guardianship of
applicant no.2 (daughter-in-law of Raj
Bahadur Singh), the mother of Rohit and
Mohit. In the complaint dated 05.07.2011 it
is further alleged that in the registered Will
dated 30.11.2000, applicant nos. 3 and 4
were witnesses and opposite party no.2
came to know about the forged Will dated
30.11.2000 only when mutation proceeding
was started and when he made a request
from Raj Bahadur Singh and applicants to
cancel the forged Will dated 30.11.2000 of
Vijay Bahadur Singh then they refused to
cancel the same and when opposite party
no.2 tried to lodge the FIR then police did
not lodge his FIR, therefore, he filed
impugned complaint on 05.07.2011.

5. In support of complaint dated
05.07.2011, opposite party no.2 was
examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and
Yogesh Pal Singh and Ghambheer Singh
both sons-in-law of Vijay Bahadur Singh
were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
as PW-1 and PW-2. On 19.09.2012 on the
basis
of
complaint
and
statements
recorded under Section 200 and 202
Cr.P.C., ACJM, Farrukhabad summoned
the applicants and Raj Bahadur Singh
(not applicant), under Sections 420, 468,
471, 506, 120B IPC.

6. Against the summoning order
dated 19.09.2012 applicant nos. 1 and 2
preferred Criminal Revision No. 308 of
2012 before the Sessions Judge but on
03.11.2015 their revision was dismissed,
hence the instant application has been
moved challenging the complaint dated
05.07.2011,
summoning
order
dated
19.09.2012 and lower revisional court
order dated 03.11.2015.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that present dispute is purely
civil dispute and opposite party no.2 has
filed the impugned complaint only with
intention to harass the applicants. He
further submitted that the Will dated
30.11.2000 was a registered Will and on
the basis of Will dated 30.11.2000,
mutation proceeding was commenced,
which ultimately decided in favour of
applicants after hearing both the parties and
opposite party no.2 neither challenged the
order of mutation dated 10.04.2012 nor he
ever challenged the Will dated 30.11.2000.
Learned counsel for the applicants next
submitted that as opposite party no.2, sonin-law of Vijay Bahadur Singh was well
aware that Will dated 30.11.2000 is not
forged one, therefore, he did not challenge
the same before any competent civil court
and without filing any suit for cancellation
of Will dated 30.11.2000, he directly filed
impugned complaint, which is bad in law.
He further submitted that opposite party
no.2 tried to negotiate the matter but when
negotiation could not be finalized then
ultimately
he
lodged
the
impugned
complaint on 05.07.2011 on the basis of
false allegation and the fact of negotiation
is evident from the complaint itself.
Learned counsel for the applicants further
submitted that as opposite party no.2 filed
impugned
criminal
complaint
with
malicious intention only to harass the
applicants and impugned complaint does
not disclose any criminal offence and
efficacious
remedy
was
available
to
opposite party no.2 before civil court,
therefore, impugned complaint as well as
summoning order are liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the applicants next
submitted that both the courts below failed
to consider these facts and merely on the
basis of averments made in the complaint,
applicants were summoned and when
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicant nos. 1 and 2 challenged the
summoning
order
before
the
lower
revisional court in revision then, their
revision was also dismissed, therefore, both
the courts below committed an error of law.

8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed
the prayer and submitted that there is
specific allegation against the applicants
in the impugned complaint that on the
basis of forged Will of Vijay Bahadur
Singh dated 30.11.2000, the names of the
sons of applicant nos. 1 and 2 were
mutated over the property of Vijay
Bahadur Singh, who was father-in-law of
opposite party no.2 and applicant no.2
was the guardian of her sons, namely
Rohit Bhadauriya and Mohit Bhadauriya
in the Will dated 30.11.2000, therefore,
prima facie offence under Sections 420,
468, 471, 506, 120B IPC is made out
against the applicants. Learned AGA
further submitted that as applicant nos. 3
and 4 are the witnesses of the forged Will
and they were very well aware that Will
of Vijay Bahadur Singh dated 30.11.2000
is forged one, therefore they too cannot
scape from their liability and court below
rightly summoned the applicants in the
present matter.

9. Learned AGA next submitted that
the
argument
advanced
by
learned
counsel for the applicants can only be
properly appreciated during the course of
trial and not at this stage. He next
submitted that merely on the basis of fact
that dispute is civil in nature, the
proceeding pending against the applicants
cannot be quashed as complaint dated
05.07.2011 also discloses prima facie
cognizable
offences
against
the
applicants, therefore, instant application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be
dismissed.

10.

I
have
given
thoughtful
consideration on the rival submissions and
perused the record of the case.

11. The power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. of this court is although wide
enough but law has been settled by catena
of decisions of the Apex Court that only in
rarest
of
rare
cases,
the
criminal
proceedings should be quashed at its
inception.

12. The three judge Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs.
State of Punjab AIR 1690 SC 866 after
discussing the power of this Court under
Section 561A old code (pari materia with
Section 482 Cr.P.C.) observed in paragraph
no.6 as:-

"6. Before dealing with the merits
of the appeal it is necessary to consider the
nature and scope of the inherent power of
the High Court under Section 561 -A of the
Code. The said section saves the inherent
power of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under this Code or to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
There is no doubt that this inherent power
cannot be exercised in regard to matters
specifically covered by the other provisions
of the Code. In the present case the
magistrate before whom the police report
has been filed under Section 173 of the
Code has yet not applied his mind to the
merits of the said report and it may be
assumed in favour of the appellant that his
request
for
the
quashing
of
the
.proceedings is not at the present stage
covered by any specific provision of the
Code. It is well-established that the
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can
be exercised to quash proceedings in a
9 All. Raghvendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
359
proper case either to prevent the abuse of
the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily
criminal proceedings instituted against an
accused person must be tried under the
provisions of the Code, and the High Court
would be reluctant to interfere with the said
proceedings at an interlocutory stage. It is
not possible, desirable or expedient to lay
down any inflexible rule which would
govern the exercise of this inherent
jurisdiction. However, we may indicate
some categories of cases where the
inherent jurisdiction can and should be
exercised for quashing the proceedings.
There may be cases where it may be
possible for the High Court to take the view
that the institution or continuance of
criminal proceedings against an accused
person may amount to the abuse of the
process of the court or that the quashing of
the impugned proceedings would secure the
ends of justice. If the criminal proceeding
in question is in respect of an offence
alleged to have been committed by an
accused person and it manifestly appears
that there is a legal bar against the
institution or continuance of the said
proceeding the High Court would be
justified in quashing the proceeding on that
ground. Absence of the requisite sanction
may, for instance, furnish cases under this
category. Cases may also arise where the
a11egations in the First Information Report
or the complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their
entirety, do not constitute the offence
alleged; in such cases no ques- tion of
appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter
merely of looking at the complaint or the
First Information Report to decide whether
the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In
such cases it would be legitimate for the
High Court to hold that it would be
manifestly unjust to allow the process of the
criminal court to be issued against the
accused person. A third category of cases
in which the inherent jurisdiction of the
High Court can be successfully invoked
may also arise. In cases falling under this
category the allegations made against the
accused person do constitute an offence
alleged but there is either no legal
evidence adduced in support of the case or
evidence adduced clearly or manifestly
fails to prove the charge. In dealing with
this class of cases it is important to bear in
mind the distinction between a case where
there is no legal evidence or where there is
evidence which is manifestly and clearly
inconsistent with the accusation made and
cases where there is legal evidence which
on its appreciation may or may not support
the accusation in question. In exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 561-A the High
Court would not embark upon an enquiry
as to whether the evidence in question is
reliable or not. That is the function of the
trial magis- trate, and ordinarily it would
not be open to any party to invoke the High
Court's inherent jurisdiction and' contend
that on a reasonable appreciation of the
evidence the accusation made against the
accused would not be sustained. xxxxxxxx"

(Emphasis supplied)

13. Again Supreme Court discussed
the power of this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. very elaborately in the case of
State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan
Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
and in paragraph 102 enumerated 7
categories of the cases where power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by
this Court which is quoted below:-

"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
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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."

14. Recently the three Judge Bench of
the Apex Court in the case of M/s.
Neeharika Inrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
State
of
Maharashtra
and
others
reported in [AIR 2021 Supreme Court
1918] again discussed the scope of Section
482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of Constitution
of
India
in
detailed
manner
and
summarised in paragraph-23 as under:-

"23. In view of the above and for
the reasons stated above, our final
conclusions on the principal/core issue,
whether the High Court would be justified
in passing an interim order of stay of
investigation and/or "no coercive steps to
be adopted", during the pendency of the
quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C
and/or
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution
of
India
and
in
what
circumstances and whether the High Court
would be justified in passing the order of
not to arrest the accused or "no coercive
9 All. Raghvendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
361
steps
to
be
adopted"
during
the
investigation
or
till
the
final
report/chargesheet is filed under Section
173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing
of/not
entertaining/not
quashing
the
criminal
proceedings/complaint/FIR
in
exercise of powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, our final conclusions
are as under:

i) Police has the statutory right
and duty under the relevant provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure contained
in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate
into a cognizable offence;

ii) Courts would not thwart any
investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) It is only in cases where no
cognizable offence or offence of any kind is
disclosed in the first information report
that the Court will not permit an
investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should
be exercised sparingly with circumspection,
as it has been observed, in the ''rarest of
rare cases (not to be confused with the
formation in the context of death penalty).

v)
While
examining
an
FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon
an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness
or
otherwise
of
the
allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi)
Criminal
proceedings
ought not to be scuttled at the initial
stage;

vii)
Quashing
of
a
complaint/FIR should be an exception
rather than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are
barred from usurping the jurisdiction
of the police, since the two organs of
the State operate in two specific
spheres of activities and one ought not
to tread over the other sphere;

ix) The functions of the judiciary
and the police are complementary, not
overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases
where non-interference would result in
miscarriage of justice, the Court and the
judicial process should not interfere at the
stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent
powers of the Court do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is
not an encyclopaedia which must disclose
all facts and details relating to the offence
reported. Therefore, when the investigation
by the police is in progress, the court
should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be
permitted to complete the investigation. It
would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the
complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of
process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no
substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may
file an appropriate report/summary before
the learned Magistrate which may be
considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of
wide power requires the court to be more
cautious. It casts an onerous and more
diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time,
the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had
to the parameters of quashing and the
self-restraint
imposed by
law,
more
particularly the parameters laid down by
this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur
(supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the
jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;
362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

xv) When a prayer for quashing
the FIR is made by the alleged accused and
the court when it exercises the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider
whether the allegations in the FIR disclose
commission of a cognizable offence or not.
The court is not required to consider on
merits whether or not the merits of the
allegations make out a cognizable offence
and
the
court
has
to
permit
the
investigating agency/police to investigate
the allegations in the FIR;

xvi) The aforesaid parameters
would be applicable and/or the aforesaid
aspects are required to be considered by
the High Court while passing an interim
order in a quashing petition in exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. However, an interim order of stay of
investigation during the pendency of the
quashing petition can be passed with
circumspection. Such an interim order
should not require to be passed routinely,
casually and/or mechanically. Normally,
when the investigation is in progress and
the
facts
are
hazy
and
the
entire
evidence/material is not before the High
Court, the High Court should restrain itself
from passing the interim order of not to
arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted"
and the accused should be relegated to
apply for anticipatory bail under Section
438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court.
The High Court shall not and as such is not
justified in passing the order of not to
arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either
during
the
investigation
or
till
the
investigation is completed and/or till the
final report/chargesheet is filed under
Section
173
Cr.P.C.,
while
dismissing/disposing
of
the
quashing
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

xvii) Even in a case where the
High Court is prima facie of the opinion
that an exceptional case is made out for
grant
of
interim
stay
of
further
investigation, after considering the broad
parameters while exercising the powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
referred to hereinabove, the High Court
has to give brief reasons why such an
interim order is warranted and/or is
required to be passed so that it can
demonstrate the application of mind by the
Court and the higher forum can consider
what was weighed with the High Court
while passing such an interim order.

xviii) Whenever an interim order
is passed by the High Court of "no coercive
steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid
parameters, the High Court must clarify
what does it mean by "no coercive steps to
be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps
to be adopted" can be said to be too vague
and/or broad which can be misunderstood
and/or misapplied."

 (Emphasis supplied)

15. Therefore, the law is now settled
that if a case falls under the parameters of
R.P. Kapur case (supra) and State of
Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and
others (supra) then this Court can quash the
proceedings while exercising its power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

16. Before proceeding further it is
necessary to have a glance of Section 482
Cr.P.C. which runs as:-

"482. Saving of inherent power
of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall
be deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under this Code, or to prevent
9 All. Raghvendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
363
abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

17. Therefore, Section 482 Cr.P.C.
deals with the inherent power of this Court
to prevent the abuse of process of any
Court or to secure the ends of justice.

18. The three judges Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai
Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat
and another (2017) 9 SCC 641 held that
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is prefaced with an
overriding provision and this Court being a
superior Court has the inherent power to
make such orders as are necessary (i) to
prevent an abuse of the process of any
Court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends
of justice.

19. Recently, the Apex Court in the
case of Kapil Agarwal and others Vs.
Sanjay Sharma and others (2021) 5 SCC
524 observed in paragraph no. 18.1 in
respect of power of this court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. as:-

"As observed and held by this
Court in catena of decisions, inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
and/or
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution is designed to achieve salutary
purpose that criminal proceedings ought
not to be permitted to degenerate into
weapon of harassment. When the Court is
satisfied that criminal proceedings amount
to an abuse of process of law or that it
amounts
to
bringing
pressure
upon
accused, in exercise of inherent powers,
such proceedings can be quashed."

20. Applying the law laid down by
the Apex Court referred to herein-above,
now I will proceed to discuss the fact of the
present case.

21. The impugned complaint was
filed by opposite party no.2 against the
applicants with the allegation that on the
basis of forged Will of his father-in-law
applicant no.1 and 2 mutated the name of
their sons but admittedly Will in dispute
dated 30.11.2000 was registered one and on
the basis of registered Will after hearing
both the parties, the mutation court passed
the order in favour of applicants and except
the bald allegation, there is no evidence on
record on the basis of which, it can be said
that the alleged registered Will dated
30.11.2000 was forged one.

22. The Apex Court in case of R.P.
Kapur (supra) observed that if there is no
legal evidence adduced in support of the
case or evidence adduced clearly or
manifestly fails to charge then proceedings
of such cases can be quashed while
exercising the power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. (Section 561A of the old code).

23. In the present case except bald
allegation there is no legal evidence on
record which can show that either
applicants prepared the forged Will or
they executed the forged Will, rather there
is order of mutation dated 10.04.2012
(Annexure No.9 to the affidavit filed in
support of present application) which
shows that after hearing both the parties,
on the basis of registered Will dated
30.11.2000, the name of sons of applicant
nos. 1 and 2 were mutated and opposite
party no.2 did not even challenge the order
dated 10.04.2012, therefore, in view of the
law laid down in R.P. Kapur (supra), the
instant
application
is
liable
to
be
succeeded.
364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. Further, opposite party no.2 did
not even challenge the alleged forged Will
dated 30.11.2000 in any competent civil
court
and
directly
filed
impugned
complaint and further as per the complaint
itself he tried to negotiate the matter with
the applicants but when failed then he filed
the
impugned
complaint
against
the
applicants and Raj Bahadur Singh (not
applicant). Apparently, the present dispute
is of civil nature, therefore, question arises,
whether in such cases, which are purely
civil in nature, criminal proceedings should
be permitted to continue.

25. The Apex Court in the case of G.
Sagar Suri and another Vs. State of U.P.
and others (2000) 2 SCC 636 observed in
paragraph no. 8 as:-

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

26. The Supreme Court in the case of
Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India
Limited and others (2006) 6 SCC 736
observed as:-

"13. xxxxx There is also an
impression that if a person could somehow
be entangled in a criminal prosecution,
there is a likelihood of imminent settlement.
Any effort to settle civil disputes and
claims, which do not involve any criminal
offence, by applying pressure though
criminal prosecution should be deprecated
and discouraged"

27. The three judge Bench of the
Apex
Court
in
the
case
of
M.
Subramaniam and another Vs. S. Janki
and another (2020) 16 SCC 728 cautioned
that a civil dispute should not be given the
colour of criminal offence.

28. If I apply the above principles on
the facts of the case at hand then I find that
opposite party no.2 has given the colour of
criminal offence to a purely civil dispute.
As per the allegation, on the basis of forged
Will, the mutation proceeding was ended in
favour of the applicants but there is no
evidence that the Will dated 30.11.2000,
the registered Will was forged one,
therefore, only competent civil court
having jurisdiction over the matter could
decide the issue whether the Will in dispute
dated 30.11.2000 was forged one or not but
opposite party no.2 did not choose to file
any suit for cancellation of Will dated
30.11.2000, therefore, it appears that he
wanted to settle his score through criminal
proceedings as criminal proceedings can be
very easily initiated and can harass the
applicants too. Therefore, from this point of
view too, the present application filed on
behalf of the applicants can succeed.

29. The three judge Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan
Goswami and another Vs. State of
Uttaranchal and others (2007) 12 SCC 1
also deprecated the practice that if the
dispute is purely of civil in nature and can
only be ascertained on the basis of evidence
9 All. Shani @ Sani Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
365
by
competent
court
then
criminal
proceedings should not be permitted to
continue.

30. In case at hand, the question
whether Will dated 30.11.2000 is forged
could only be ascertained through evidence
and documents by a civil court of
competent jurisdiction but opposite party
no.2 did not challenge the Will before any
civil court, therefore, impugned complaint
can be nipped in the bud while exercising
the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

31. As, the present dispute is in
respect of registered Will deed of deceased
and registered Will was never challenged
by opposite party no.2 in any competent
civil court and there is no evidence on
record, which can even indicate that the
Will in question dated 30.11.2000 was
forged one, therefore, in my considered
view, the criminal proceedings instituted by
the opposite party no.2 is nothing but an
abuse of the process of law and it has been
used by him only as a weapon of
oppression against the applicants.

32. Therefore, from the discussion
made above, I find merit in the case and
accordingly the proceedings of Complaint
Case No. 2439 of 2012 dated 05.07.2011
under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506, 120B
IPC pending in the court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad as
well as summoning order dated 19.09.2012
and order dated 03.11.2015 passed by
revisional court in Criminal Revision No.
308 of 2012, Police Station Maudarwaza,
District Farrukhabad are hereby quashed.

33. The instant application stands
allowed.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 365
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MOHD. ASLAM, J.

Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 3246 of
2019

Shani @ Sani Kumar & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Jai Prakash Prasad, Vaishali Sahu

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Rajiv Tiwari, Sri S.P.S. Chauhan,
Sri Sukhendra Singh

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 323,
504, 506 - 3⁄4 D.P. Act,1961 -Quashing of
entire
criminal
proceedings-accused
applicants were demanding dowry of Rs. 2
lac for construction of house and on
refusal they assaulted her- the victim
alleged in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
that the husband came house after
consuming liquor abused her and torn her
private part-statement made u/s 164
Cr.P.C, she corroborated the version of
161
Cr.P.C.-medical
evidence
clearly
indicates that the victim sustained injury
in her private part and she was admitted
to hospital for treatment-the order of
cognizance was passed on the order-sheet
and not on the printed proforma-At this
stage, Court cannot marshal the evidence
and adjudicate the reliability of evidence
rather it as to only see whether the prima
facie case of cognizable offence is made
out or not-Hence, no illegality in the
impugned order.(Para 1 to 12)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited: