# Ram Surat Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 582
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-03
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 2440 of 2016
- **Bench:** Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-surat-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52898
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure1973 - Section 482-Final report in
favour of the applicants-accused-allegations
relate to the forged compromise-got the said
land entered in their favour- but once the said
consolidation
proceedings
were
finally
adjudicated on the strength of the said
document- it does not appeal to prudence that
the complainant would not challenge the said
proceedings- inconsistency in their St.ments-trial
court has only referred to the St.ments of the
1 All. Ram Surat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
583
witnesses-not on the substance of the said
St.ments
while
summoning
the
accused-
impugned order is not sustainable.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 specific provision in the Code or
the
concerned
Act,
providing
efficacious
redress
for
the
grievance of 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.
We also give a note of
caution to the effect that the power
of quashing a criminal proceeding
should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that
too in the rarest of rare cases; that
the court will not be justified in
embarking upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made
in the FIR or the complaint and
that the extraordinary or inherent
powers do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the court to act
according to its whim or caprice."

25. Thus, in the considered opinion
of this Court, this case is also a fit case for
exercise of inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to avoid the misuse of law.

26.

Resultantly,
both
the
applications succeed and Charge Sheet No.
160/2010 dated 11th May, 2010 as well as
the cognizance order dated 24th June,
2010, arising out of Case Crime No.
241/2010, under Sections 406, 504 and 506
IPC, Police Station Ghazipur, Lucknow and
Charge Sheet No. 160A/2014 dated 14th
July, 2014 as well as the cognizance order
dated 04th September, 2014, arising out of
Case Crime No. 241A/2010, under Sections
147, 148, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police
Station Ghazipur, Lucknow, and the entire
proceedings arising therefrom, pending in
the Court of Special Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Custom, Lucknow, are ordered
to be quashed.

27. The applications are allowed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 582
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 2440 of 2016

Ram Surat Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Rajendra Prasa Mishra, Rakesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Devi Prasad Maurya

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure1973 - Section 482-Final report in
favour of the applicants-accused-allegations
relate to the forged compromise-got the said
land entered in their favour- but once the said
consolidation
proceedings
were
finally
adjudicated on the strength of the said
document- it does not appeal to prudence that
the complainant would not challenge the said
proceedings- inconsistency in their St.ments-trial
court has only referred to the St.ments of the
1 All. Ram Surat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
583
witnesses-not on the substance of the said
St.ments
while
summoning
the
accused-
impugned order is not sustainable.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. S.W. Palantikar & ors. Vs St. of Bihar & anr.,
(2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 241

2. St. of Har. & ors. Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors.,
1992 SCC(Cr.) 426

3. Bhajan Lal (Supra), in the case of Salib alias
Shalu @ Salim Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 947

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1. Applicants-Accused have filed this
application under Section 482 Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing of the
Complaint Case No. 1228 of 2011; titled
Udai Raj vs. Ram Surat Singh and others,
as well as the impugned summoning order
dated 27th February, 2016 passed by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II,
Faizabad,
whereby
they
have
been
summoned for alleged commission of
offences punishable under Sections 504 and
506 IPC, and the entire proceedings arising
therefrom.

2. The facts in brief leading to the
petition are that initially on the basis of a
complaint given by Udai Raj-opposite party
no. 2, a Case Crime No. 42 of 2011, under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B,
504,
506
IPC
and
Section
3(1)(X)
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police
Station
Haiderganj,
District
Faizabad
(Annexure No. 8) was registered, wherein
it is alleged that he belongs to a scheduled
caste category and is a poor person. The
land comprised in Gata No. 638 situated at
Village
Baintikala,
Police
Station
Haiderganj, District Faizabad is in the
name of his mother, and the accused
namely Ram Surat Singh alongwith his
sons exercised influence upon the officials
of the Consolidation department, and by
using a forged compromise purportedly on
behalf of complainant's mother got the said
land entered in their favour. The officials of
the
Consolidation
department
also
connived with them, and in this regard, on
28th November, 2010, when complainant
asked for information from Ram Surat
Singh, in response, they all abused him in
the name of his caste and extended threats.
A complaint was given to the police, but no
action
was
taken,
therefore,
the
complainant resorted to Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., whereupon the above noticed FIR
was registered.

3. After registration of the case, the
investigation was conducted, and finally,
nothing incriminating was found against
the accused persons, who were declared
innocent through the final report under
Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. dated 28th April,
2011 (Annexure No. 11).

4. Aggrieved against the said final
report, the complainant instituted a protest
petition dated 1.7.2011 (Annexure No. 12),
and thereafter, in support of the complaint,
he got recorded his statement under Section
200 Cr.P.C., and his mother-Faguna Devi
also appeared to support his version.
Considering the contents of the complaint
and the pre-summoning evidence, only
three accused persons (applicants) were
summoned for alleged commission of
offences punishable under Sections 504 and
506
IPC,
whereas
no
incriminating
evidence was found against the rest of the
accused arraigned in the complaint.
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5. Learned counsel for the
applicants-accused has argued that the
entire case of the complainant is based
upon
documentary
material
and
the
allegations contained in the complaint were
thoroughly investigated by police initially
after FIR (Annexure No. 8) was registered
and nothing was found against the accused
persons. Learned counsel next submits that
the complainant has been taking conflicting
stands, who initially in his version
contained
in
the
FIR
has
levelled
allegations against Ram Surat Singh and
officials of the Consolidation department,
but in the protest petition/complaint, he has
chosen to implicate the applicant nos. 2 and
3 also. Learned counsel submits that the
summoning order dated 27th February,
2016 has been passed in a mechanical
manner, and the background of the case, as
well as evidence on record has not been
carefully examined, much less to record a
satisfaction that a prima facie case is made
out against the accused. Learned counsel
has further argued that as per the
allegations, the dispute between the parties
related to the consolidation proceedings,
but
the
said
dispute
stands
finally
adjudicated in favour of the applicants,
therefore, it is evident that the prosecution
of the accused is attended with malafide.
Learned counsel submits that the impugned
order is against the settled principles of law,
therefore, it calls for interference by this
Court in exercise of inherent powers under
Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Notice of the petition was issued
to opposite party no. 2-complainant, and as
per office report dated 22nd December,
2016, the complainant was effectively
served, and to represent him, power of
attorney by Mr. Devi Prasad Maurya,
Advocate was filed. But, till date, no
counter affidavit on behalf of complainant
has been filed, and even today no one is
present to represent the complainant.

7. After hearing the learned
counsel for the applicants and considering
his submissions, this Court finds that the
allegations levelled by the complainant in
the FIR were not found to be truthful and
noting incriminating was found against the
accused, which resulted in submission of
final report in favour of the applicantsaccused, who were declared innocent.
Though, the allegations in the FIR, as well
as in the complaint relate to the forged
compromise, which had been relied upon
by Ram Surat Singh, but once the said
consolidation proceedings were finally
adjudicated on the strength of the said
document, it does not appeal to prudence
that the complainant would not challenge
the said proceedings. Thus, this amounts
acceptance of the said verdict by Faguna
and her descendants.

8. That apart, the allegations
relating to the forgery and cheating have
been disbelieved by the Magistrate as well,
as the impugned summoning order dated
27th February, 2016 relates to the alleged
commission of offences punishable under
Sections 504 and 506 IPC. Similarly, the
allegations relating to the alleged offence
under SC/ST Act has also not been made
out and while examining the statements of
the material witnesses, i.e. Udai Raj and
Faguna Devi (complainant's mother), this
Court
finds
inconsistency
in
their
statements. The statement of complainant
Udai Raj was recorded under Section 200
Cr.P.C. on 21st October, 2011, wherein
there is no mention of intimidation to the
complainant, much less by the accused
persons, who only stated that when he went
to the house of Ram Surat Singh to enquire
1 All. Ram Surat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
585
about the settlement, he abused him in the
name of his caste.

9. Likewise, the other statement of
Faguna Devi does not lend any strength to
the case of the complainant, who was not
present at the place of occurrence, and in
her statement before the court under
Section 202 Cr.P.C., she stated that when
her son visited the house of Ram Surat
Singh, the applicants-accused abused him
in the name of his caste. Thus, the material
on record is not enough to prima facie
show the commission of alleged offences,
but the trial court has proceeded to issue
process against the accused in a routine
manner. Here, it will be useful to rely upon
the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of S.W. Palantikar and others
versus State of Bihar and another, (2002)
1 Supreme Court Cases 241. The relevant
observations read as under:-

"23. Many a times,
complaints are filed under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. by the
parties with an oblique
motive or for collateral
purposes to harass, to
wreck
vengeance,
pressurize the accused to
bring them to their own
terms or to enforce the
obligations arising out of
breach of contract touching
commercial
transactions
instead
of
approaching
civil courts with a view to
realize
money
at
the
earliest. It is also to be kept
in mind that when parties
commit a wrongful act
constituting
a
criminal
offence satisfying necessary
ingredients of an offence,
they cannot be allowed to
walk
away
with
an
impression that no action
could be taken against
them on criminal side. A
wrongful or illegal act such
as criminal breach of trust,
misappropriation, cheating
or defamation may give
rise to action both on civil
as well as on criminal side
when it is clear from the
complaint
and
sworn
statements that necessary
ingredients of constituting
an offence are made out.
May be parties are entitled
to proceed on civil side
only in a given situation in
the absence of an act
constituting an offence but
not to proceed against the
accused
in
a
criminal
prosecution. Hence before
issuing
a
process
a
Magistrate
has
to
essentially keep in mind the
scheme contained in the
provisions of Section 200203 of Cr.P.C. keeping in
mind the position of law
stated above and pass an
order judiciously and not
mechanically or in routine
manner."

xx
xx

xx
xx
xx

xx

"27
?........The
approach
and
considerations
while
exercising
power
and
jurisdiction
by
a
Magistrate at the time of
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issuing process are to be in
terms of Sections 200 to
203 under Chapter XV of
Criminal Procedure Code,
having due regard to the
position of law explained in
various decisions of this
Court, and whereas while
exercising
power
under
Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code the High
Court has to look at the
object and purpose for
which
such
power
is
conferred on it under the
said provision. Exercise of
inherent power is available
to the High Court to give
effect to any order under
the
Criminal
Procedure
Code, or to prevent abuse
of the process of any Court
or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice. This being
the position, exercise of
power under Section 482
Criminal Procedure Code
should be consistent with
the scope and ambit of the
same in the light of the
decisions aforementioned.
In appropriate cases, to
prevent
judicial
process
from being an instrument of
oppression or harassment
in the hands of frustrated
or
vindictive
litigants,
exercise of inherent power
is not only desirable but
necessary also, so that the
judicial forum of the Court
may not be allowed to be
utilized for any oblique
motive. When a person
approaches the High Court
under Section 482 Criminal
Procedure Code to quash
the very issue of process,
the High Court on the facts
and circumstances of a
case has to exercise the
powers
with
circumspection as stated
above to really serve the
purpose and object for
which they are conferred."

10. A perusal of the impugned
order would also show that the trial court
has only referred to the recording of the
statements of the witnesses, and has not
chosen to comment on the substance of the
said statements while summoning the
accused. Thus, the impugned order dated
27th February, 2016 is not sustainable and
calls for interference by this Court.

11. Further, in State of Haryana
and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and
others, 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had closely analysed the
inherent powers contained in Section 482
Cr.P.C. and laid down clear guidelines for
exercise of such power, and held that where
the criminal proceedings are attended with
malafide intentions, the exercise of inherent
powers is justified to prevent the abuse of
the process of law. The relevant portion of
the decision reads as under:-

"The following categories
of cases can be stated by way of
illustration
wherein
the
extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under
Section
482,
Cr.P.C.
can
be
exercised by the High Court either
to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may
1 All. Ram Surat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
587
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
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. We also give a
note of caution to the effect that the
power of quashing a criminal
proceeding should be exercised
very
sparingly
and
with
circumspection and that too in the
rarest of rare cases; that the court
will not be justified in embarking
upon an enquiry as to the reliability
or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR or the
complaint
and
that
the
extraordinary or inherent powers
do
not
confer
an
arbitrary
jurisdiction on the court to act
according to its whim or caprice."
(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 specific provision in the Code or
the
concerned
Act,
providing
efficacious
redress
for
the
grievance of 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.
We also give a note of
caution to the effect that the power
of quashing a criminal proceeding
should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that
too in the rarest of rare cases; that
588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the court will not be justified in
embarking upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made
in the FIR or the complaint and
that the extraordinary or inherent
powers do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the court to act
according to its whim or caprice."

12. Recently, the Apex Court again
followed the above view contained in the
case of Bhajan Lal (Supra), in the case of
Salib alias Shalu alias Salim Vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
947. The relevant observations relating to
exercise of inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. are reproduced hereunder:-

"27. In our opinion, the
present
case
falls
within
the
parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7 resply
referred to above.
28. At this stage, we would
like
to
observe
something
important. Whenever an accused
comes before the Court invoking
either the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or
extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution to
get the FIR or the criminal
proceedings quashed essentially on
the ground that such proceedings
are
manifestly
frivolous
or
vexatious or instituted with the
ulterior
motive
for
wreaking
vengeance,
then
in
such
circumstances the Court owes a
duty to look into the FIR with care
and a little more closely. We say so
because once the complainant
decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance, etc.,
then he would ensure that the
FIR/complaint is very well drafted
with all the necessary pleadings.
The complainant would ensure that
the
averments
made
in
the
FIR/complaint are such that they
disclose the necessary ingredients
to constitute the alleged offence.
Therefore, it will not be just enough
for the Court to look into the
averments
made
in
the
FIR/complaint
alone
for
the
purpose of ascertaining whether
the
necessary
ingredients
to
constitute the alleged offence are
disclosed or not. In frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court
owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging
from the record of the case over
and above the averments and, if
need be, with due care and
circumspection try to read in
between the lines. The Court while
exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the CrPC or Article
226 of the Constitution need not
restrict itself only to the stage of a
case but is empowered to take into
account the overall circumstances
leading to the initiation/registration
of the case as well as the materials
collected
in
the
course
of
investigation. Take for instance the
case on hand. Multiple FIRs have
been registered over a period of
time. It is in the background of such
circumstances the registration of
multiple FIRs assumes importance,
thereby attracting the issue of
wreaking vengeance out of private
or personal grudge as alleged."

(Emphasis Supplied)
1 All. Sharad Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
589
13. Thus, in view of the above
discussion, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that impugned complaint filed by
the opposite party no.2 against the
applicant is nothing, but an abuse of the
process of law, therefore this Court finds it
to be a fit case for exercise of inherent
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

14.

Resultantly,
the
present
application succeeds and the Complaint
Case No. 1228 of 2011; titled Udai Raj vs.
Ram Surat Singh and others, under
Sections 504 and 506 IPC, as well as the
impugned summoning order dated 27th
February, 2016 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-II, Faizabad, and the
proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered
to be quashed.

15. The application is allowed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 589
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 6982 of 2017

Sharad Kumar & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Gopesh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 107 & 306-no evidence in the case
of alleged abetment of suicide - no active act
shown on the part of the applicants - the loan
was sanctioned in the name of the deceased,
who could not repay the same-the applicants
being brothers could not have been held
responsible for abetment in commission of
suicide by the deceased- no evidence to
establish that applicants were responsible to
repay the loan amount which was advanced in
the name of the deceased-continuance of the
present criminal proceedings is nothing but an
abuse of process of law.

Application allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mariano Anto Bruno & anr. Vs The Inspector
of Police, 2022 Livelaw (SC) 834: 2022 SCC
Online SC 1387;

2. Criminal Appeal No.3578 of 2023, Mohit
Singhal & anr. Vs The St. of Uttarakhand & ors.,
decided on 01.12.2023;

3. Swamy Prahaladdas Vs St. of M.P. & anr.,
1995 Supp (3) SCC 438

4. Application U/s 482 No.24303 of 2016,
Ambesh Mani Tripathi Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
decided on 01.12.2023

5. Geo Verghese Vs St. of Raj. & anr., 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 873

6. M. Arjunan Vs St., represented by its
Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315

7. S.S. Cheena Vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan & anr.,
(2010) 12 SCC 190

8. Ude Singh & ors. Vs St. of Har., (2019) 17
SCC 301

9. Madan Mohan Singh Vs St. of Guj. & anr.,
(2010) 8 SCC 628

10. St. of Kerala & ors. Vs S. Unnikrishnan Nair
& ors., (2015) 9 SCC 639

11. Kanchan Sharma Vs St. of U.P. & anr.,
decided on 17.09.2021

12. M. Vijayakumar Vs St. of T.N., (2024) 4 SCC
633