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

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 286
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-20
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 2582 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Pachori
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raghvendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53360
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

G.A., Vipin Kumar Yadav

Private opposite party no. 2 is wife of the
applicant- -various matrimonial disputes are
pending between the parties -as per medical
report- five injuries are found on the body of the
injured person/first informant-Inherent power
must be utilised with the sole purpose of
preventing the abuse of the process of the court
or to otherwise serve the ends of justice- proper
scrutiny of facts and circumstances of the case
concerned is absolutely imperative.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of hearing, calling the explanation of the
applicant, but, it reveals from the impugned
Judgment and Order dated 27-10-2015 that
no such opportunity of hearing was given
to the applicant.

28. Thus, I am of the considered
opinion that the learned trial court while
making
the
adverse
remarks/direction
against the applicant in the impugned
Judgment and Order, has ignored the
settled principle of law in the case of
Mohammad Naim(Supra) and Neeraj
Garg(Supra) and further, the purpose of
the invocation of section 4 of the Act,1989,
has also been defeated, as the learned trial
court without reaching to the conclusion
that
there
is
'wilful
negligence'
in
conducting the investigation, has made
adverse remarks.

29.
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
submissions and discussions, this court
finds merits, in the instant application and
thus, the application under section 482
Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.

30. Consequently, the adverse remarks
in the Judgment and Order dated 27-102015, quoted in paragraph no. 8 of this
order, is hereby set aside.

31. Consequences to follow.

32. Consigned to record.
---------
(2025) 5 ILRA 286
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 2582 of 2025
Raghvendra Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ravesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Vipin Kumar Yadav

Private opposite party no. 2 is wife of the
applicant- -various matrimonial disputes are
pending between the parties -as per medical
report- five injuries are found on the body of the
injured person/first informant-Inherent power
must be utilised with the sole purpose of
preventing the abuse of the process of the court
or to otherwise serve the ends of justice- proper
scrutiny of facts and circumstances of the case
concerned is absolutely imperative.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

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

2. Kurukshetra University Vs St. of Har., (1977) 4
SCC 451

3. B. S. Joshi Vs St. of Har., (2003) 4 SCC
675

4. Dhanalakshmi Vs R. Prasanna Kumar, 1990
Supp. SCC 686

5. Ganesh Narayan Hegde Vs S. Bangarappa,
(1995) 4 SCC 41

6. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Sharaful Faque, (2005) 1 SCC 122

7. St. of W.B. Vs Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1
SCC 561

8.
Pepsi
Foods
Ltd.
Vs
Special
Judicial
Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749

9. G. Sagar Suri Vs St. of U. P., (2000) 2 SCC
636 and Ajay Mitra Vs St. of M. P., (2003) 3 SCC
11]
5 All. Raghvendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
287
10. Dhandlakshmi Vs R. Prasanna Kumar, 1990
Supp SCC 686

11. St. of Bihar Vs P. P. Sharma 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 222

12. Rupan Deol Bajaj Vs Kanwar Pal Singh Gill,
(1995) 6 SCC 194,

13. St. of Kerala Vs O.C. Kuttan (1999) 2 SCC
651

14. St. of U. P. Vs O. P. Sharma, (1996) 7 SCC
705

15. Rashmi Kumar Vs Mahesh Kumar Bhada,
(1997) 2 SCC 397

16. Satvinder Kaur Vs St. (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728

17. Rajesh Bajaj v St. of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3
SCC 259

18. St. of Karnataka Vs M. Devendrappa, (2002)
3 SCC 89]

19.
Sanapareddy
Maheedhar
Seshagiri
&
another Vs St. of Andhra Pradesh & another,
(2007) 13 SCC 165

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Pachori, J.)

1. The present application under
Section
528
of
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita,
2023
(hereinafter
referred to as "BNSS") has been filed for
quashing
the
entire
proceedings
of
Criminal Case No. 5371 of 2024 (State
vs. Raghvendra Singh), arising out of
Case Crime No. 145 of 2024, under
Sections 115(2), 351 (3), 352, 110,
117(2) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS)
(equivalent to Sections 323, 506, 504,
308, 325 of IPC), P.S. Civil Lines,
District
Etawah
as
well
as
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
22.10.2024, pending in the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
the FIR dated 05.07.2024 has been lodged
against the applicant and two other
unknown persons alleging that marriage of
first informant was solemnized with the
present applicant on 11.03.2018 but due to
some matrimonial disputes first informant
is residing in her parental house. On
04.07.2024 she had gone to the civil court
for doing pairavi in a case related to the
maintenance and domestic violence, at the
same time the present applicant threatened
the first informant to withdraw all the
cases. At about 2.00 P.M. on the same day
the applicant and two other unknown
persons
came
and
abused
the
first
informant
and
pulled
her
hair
and
committed marpeet with her. Due to this
marpeet first informant became seriously
injured and sustained injuries over the
whole body including head. On her crying
the applicant and other co-accused persons
fled away from the place of incident by car.

2(i) After lodging of the FIR on
05.07.20224 at 23.11 hours, medical
examination of the first informant has been
conducted on 04.07.2024 at 2.44 P.M.
(within 45 minutes of the incident),
wherein injuries, which have been found
are as under:

(a) Incised wound of 6.9 cm x 0.8
cm. over left parietal region of clear cut
margin fresh bleeding present.

(b) Abraded contusion of 7.8 cm
x 1.9 cm over anterior aspect of over hyoid
bone, no bleeding present, red in colour and
advised X-ray of neck.

(c) Abrasion of 4.8 cm x 3.9 cm
over left lower back, no bleeding present.
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(d) Abrasion of 5.8 cm x 2.1 cm
over anterior aspect of right elbow from
right knee joint, no bleeding present, red
colour.

(e) Contusion of 4.2 cm x 3.6 cm
over right side chest with breath difficulty.
Reddish in colour KUO advised X-ray of
chest.

2(ii)
After
completing
the
investigation
charge
sheet
has
been
submitted against the applicant, and the
learned Magistrate took cognizance on
22.10.2024, under Section 115(2), 351(3),
352, 110, 117 (2) BNS (equivalent Sections
323, 504, 506, 308, 325 IPC) against the
applicant.

3.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant submits that the opposite party
no. 2 herself dispossessed the applicant and
mother of the applicant from matrimonial
house. In this regard one Complaint No.
47/12 of 2022 (Sonkali vs. Supriya and
another), under Section 12 (1) of Protection
of Women From Domestic Violence Act,
2005 has been filed against the first
informant. The first informant lodged Case
Crime No. 312 of 2024, under Sections 85,
115(2), 351(2) of B.N.S. (equivalent
Sections 498-A, 323, 506 of IPC) and
Section 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on
07.11.2024. One Maintenance Case No. 31
of 2023 (Supriya Yadav vs. Raghvendra
Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and one
Complaint Case No. 13 of 2023, under
Section 12 of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence have also been filed by
the first informant against the applicant. It
is further submitted that the offence
punishable under Sections 110 and 117 of
BNS (Section 308, 325 IPC) have been
added during the investigation. It is further
submitted that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the offence as alleged
and without conducting fair investigation
charge sheet has been submitted under
influence of father of the first informant,
who is President of Teachers Union and
close to the Ex-M.L.A., Bharthana, Etawah.

4. Learned A.G.A. as well as
learned counsel for the private opposite
party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the
prayer of this application and submit that
there is no illegality in the impugned order.

5. Before adverting to the facts of
the case it is apposite to deal with the
position of law with regard to inherent
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of
High Court.

6. In State of Haryana & Others
v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335,
the Supreme Court had dealt with the
outlines of exercise of inherent powers of
the High Court, and mention certain
category of cases by way of illustration
wherein the extraordinary power under
Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent
power under Section 482 of the Code could
be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. It was also observed
that it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae wherein such
power should be exercised. It would be
useful to mention the illustrations as
follows; (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)

 "(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
no 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
5 All. Raghvendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
289
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 Act concerned (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the Act
concerned, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fides
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."

7. The inherent powers do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High
Court to act according to whim or caprice.
That statutory power has to be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection and in the
rarest of rare cases. [Vide: Kurukshetra
University v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4
SCC 451]. Inherent power must be utilised
with the sole purpose of preventing the
abuse of the process of the court or to
otherwise serve the ends of justice. In
exercise
of
inherent
powers,
proper
scrutiny of facts and circumstances of the
case concerned is absolutely imperative.
[Vide: B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana,
(2003) 4 SCC 675]. The inherent power is
to be exercised ex debito justitiae, to do
real
and
substantial
justice,
for
administration of which alone courts exist.
Wherever any attempt is made to abuse that
authority so as to produce injustice, the
Court has power to prevent the abuse. It is,
however, not necessary that at this stage
there should be a meticulous analysis of the
case before the trial to find out whether the
case ends in conviction or acquittal. [Vide:
Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar,
1990 Supp. SCC 686, Ganesh Narayan
Hegde v. S. Bangarappa, (1995) 4 SCC
41 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works
Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Faque, (2005) 1
SCC 122].

8. The power of quashing criminal
proceedings has to be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that
too in the rarest of rare cases and the Court
cannot be justified in embarking upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness
or otherwise of allegations made in the
FIR/complaint, unless the allegations are so
patently absurd and inherently improbable
so that no prudent person can ever reach
such a conclusion.... The power of judicial
review is discretionary, however, it must be
exercised to prevent the miscarriage of
justice and for correcting some grave errors
and to ensure that esteem of administration
of
justice
remains
clean
and
pure.
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
However, there are no limits of power of
the Court, but the more the power, the more
due care and caution is to be exercised in
invoking these powers. [Vide: State of
W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1
SCC 561, Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special
Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749,
G. Sagar Suri v. State of U. P., (2000) 2
SCC 636 and Ajay Mitra v. State of M.
P., (2003) 3 SCC 11]

9. The complaint/FIR has to be
read as a whole. If it appears that on oath of
the complainant or disclosed in the FIR that
the ingredients of the offence or offences
are disclosed and there is no material to
show that the complaint/FIR is mala fide,
frivolous or vexatious, in that event there
would be no justification for interference
by the High Court. When an information is
lodged at the police station and an offence
is registered, then the mala fides of the
informant
would
be
of
secondary
importance. It is the material collected
during the investigation and evidence led in
court which decides the fate of the accused
person. The allegations of mala fides
against
the
informant
are
of
no
consequence and cannot by themselves be
the basis of quashing the proceeding.
[Vide: Dhandlakshmi v. R. Prasanna
Kumar, 1990 Supp SCC 686, State of
Bihar v. P. P. Sharma 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 222, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar
Pal Singh Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194, State
of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan (1999) 2 SCC
651, State of U. P. v. O. P. Sharma,
(1996) 7 SCC 705, Rashmi Kumar v.
Mahesh Kumar Bhada, (1997) 2 SCC
397, Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728,
Rajesh Bajaj v State of NCT of Delhi,
(1999) 3 SCC 259 and State of
Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3
SCC 89]
10. In Sanapareddy Maheedhar
Seshagiri & another v. State of Andhra
Pradesh & another, (2007) 13 SCC 165,
The Supreme Court has observed as under:
(SCC, p. 180, para 31)

"31. A careful reading of the
abovenoted judgments makes it clear that
the High Court should be extremely
cautious and slow to interfere with the
investigation and/or trial of criminal cases
and should not stall the investigation
and/or prosecution except when it is
convinced beyond any manner of doubt that
FIR does not disclose commission of any
offence or that the allegations contained in
FIR do not constitute any cognizable
offence or that the prosecution is barred by
law or the High Court is convinced that it
is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of
the process of the Court. In dealing with
such cases, the High Court has to bear in
mind that judicial intervention at the
threshold of the legal process initiated
against a person accused of committing
offence is highly detrimental to the larger
public and societal interest. The people and
the society have a legitimate expectation
that those committing offence is either
against an individual or the society are
expeditiously brought to trial and, if found
guilty, adequately punished. Therefore,
while deciding a petition filed for quashing
FIR or complaint or restraining the
competent authority from investigating the
allegations contained in FIR or complaint
or for stalling the trial of the case, the High
Court should be extremely careful and
circumspect. If the allegations contained in
FIR or complaint disclose commission of
some crime, then the High Court must keep
its hands off and allow the investigating
agency to complete the investigation
without any fatter and also refrain from
passing order which may impede the trial.
5 All. Rahul Gandhi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
291
The High Court should not go into the
malus animus against the author of FIR or
the complainant. The High Court must also
refrain from making imaginary journey in
the realm of possible harassment which
may be caused to the petitioner on account
of investigation of FIR of complaint. Such a
course will result in miscarriage of justice
and would encourage those accused of
committing crimes to repeat the same.
However, if the High Court is satisfied that
the complaint does not disclose commission
of any offence or prosecution is barred by
limitation or that the proceedings of
criminal case would result in failure of
justice, then it may exercise inherent power
under Section 482 Cr.PC."

11. After having gone through
entire material on record, the following
facts apparently emerged:

(i) Private opposite party no. 2 is
wife of the applicant and she solemnized
marriage on 11.03.2018.

(ii) Various matrimonial disputes
are pending between the parties and as per
medical report, five injuries are found on
the body of the injured person/first
informant.

12. In view of the above facts and
circumstances and keeping in mind the
settled position of law with regard to
interference of High Court in exercise of
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
without going into the merit of the case the
present application deserves no merit and is
likely to be dismissed and is, accordingly,
dismissed.

13. It is made clear that the reasons
to decide the present application shall not
affect the merit of the case.
---------
(2025) 5 ILRA 291
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 4623 of 2025

Rahul Gandhi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Mohd. Yasir Abbasi, Mohammed Samar
Ansari, Pranshu Agrawal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section
500
-
Summoning
order
-
Quashing of - Trial court, by impugned
order found that applicant's St.ment prima
facie
defamed
Indian
Army
and
its
personnel, demoralizing them and their
families - Since St.ment not made in
discharge of official duties, Section 197
Cr.P.C. does not apply - Complainant,
retired Director of BRO alleged defamation
-
Finding
sufficient
grounds,
court
summoned applicant - Impugned order,
applicant argued that alleged defamatory
St.ment made against Indian Army, not
complainant
personally
-
Since
complainant is not Indian Army officer
and applicant not target him directly, he
cannot be aggrieved person under Section
199 Cr.P.C., therefore has no right to file
complaint - Objection rejected - Trial
Court,
after
considering
complaint,
complainant's St.ment under Section 200
Cr.P.C. and witnesses St.ments under
Section 202 Cr.P.C., found applicant's
remarks defamatory - As held in Delhi
Race Club (infra), no interference is
required unless there is clear illegality,
and High Court cannot substitute its own
opinion for that of Trial Court - Applicant