# Ravikant & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 834
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-28
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 30527 of 2021
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravikant-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-50303
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code -
Sections 147, 452, 354-B, 323, 504 & 506
- In the criminal proceeding arising out of
the FIR lodged on the application u/s
156(3) Cr.P.C., IO submitted Final Report,
against which Protest petition was filed,
which
was
treated
as
complaint
-
Summon issued - Validity challenged -
Ground of delay of two moths in filing of
the application u/s 156(3) was taken -
Effect - Defence of delay was taken that
one family member of applicant, being in
police service, influenced the local police
authority to not to lodge FIR of opposite
party and when by the order of the court,
FIR was lodged, further influenced the IO
to submit the final report - Effect - Held,
an offence took place on the same date,
time and place for which both the parties
have initiated criminal proceedings. The
truth would appear only after appraisal of
the evidence. It does not appear that the
impugned criminal proceeding initiated on
behalf of opposite party no. 2 is an abuse
of process of Court. The grounds taken by
applicants are not sufficient to throw
away the case of opposite party no. 2.
(Para 17 and 19)

Application dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed.

25. The order of conviction dated
06.06.2019, passed by learned Special
Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Lucknow in
Case No.4603 of 2009, arising out of F.I.R.
registered
as
RC
No.01(S)/2006/CBI/SCB/LKO
dated
12.01.2006, under Sections 120-B, 420,
466, 467, 468, 471, 477-A I.P.C. and all the
subsequent proceedings from the aforesaid
judgment are hereby quashed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 834
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 30527 of 2021

Ravikant & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Vinod Singh, Sri Abhinav Gaur, Sri Vibhu Rai,
Sri Ankit Shukla, Sri Anoop Trivedi(Sr.Advocate)

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A. Sri Pandey, Balkrishna

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code -
Sections 147, 452, 354-B, 323, 504 & 506
- In the criminal proceeding arising out of
the FIR lodged on the application u/s
156(3) Cr.P.C., IO submitted Final Report,
against which Protest petition was filed,
which
was
treated
as
complaint
-
Summon issued - Validity challenged -
Ground of delay of two moths in filing of
the application u/s 156(3) was taken -
Effect - Defence of delay was taken that
one family member of applicant, being in
police service, influenced the local police
authority to not to lodge FIR of opposite
party and when by the order of the court,
FIR was lodged, further influenced the IO
to submit the final report - Effect - Held,
an offence took place on the same date,
time and place for which both the parties
have initiated criminal proceedings. The
truth would appear only after appraisal of
the evidence. It does not appear that the
impugned criminal proceeding initiated on
behalf of opposite party no. 2 is an abuse
of process of Court. The grounds taken by
applicants are not sufficient to throw
away the case of opposite party no. 2.
(Para 17 and 19)

Application dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Pepsi Food Ltd. & ors. Vs Special Judicial
Magistrate & ors.; (1998) 5 SCC 749

2. Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs C.B.I.; (2015) 4 SCC
609

3. M/s G.H.C.L. Employees Stock Option Trust
Vs M/s India Infoline Ltd.; AIR 2013 SC 1433

4. Lallan Kumar Singh Vs St. of Mah.; 2022
Livelaw (SC) 833

5. Krishna Lal Chawla & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.; Manu/SC/0161/2021

6. Vineet Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
Manu/SC/0351/2017

7. Sundar Babu & ors. Vs St. of T.N.; (2009) 14
SCC 244

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

9. M.N. Ojha & ors. Vs A.K. Srivastava & anr.;
(2009) 9 SCC 682

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. Has been moved by the accused-
5 All. Ravikant & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
835
applicants of Crl. Complaint Case No. 523
of 2019 (State Vs. Ravikant and Others) u/s
323, 354, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station-
Khurja Dehat, District- Bulandshahar.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that
opposite party no. 2 Smt. Kripa Devi
moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
against
the
applicants
regarding
the
incident dated 16.2.2017 to lodge the F.I.R.
against the applicants which was allowed
and an F.I.R. had been lodged at Crime No.
176 of 2017 under Section 147, 452, 354 B,
323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. P.S. Khurja Dehat,
Bulandshahar, with the allegations that on
16.2.2017 at about 6:00 p.m. when the
complainant went to the back side of her
house for feeding to her cattle, the
applicants entered her house, molested her
and also assaulted her family members due
to which they sustained injuries.

3. The police started investigation,
recorded the statement of the informant and
other witnesses such as Kallu, Triloki,
Brahmpal, Bholaram, Ashok, Pushpa Devi
and Devendra.

4. The I.O., Munna Lal Sagar,
submitted final report concluding that the
contents of the F.I.R. were not correct and
the F.I.R. was lodged only to pressurize the
applicants but the higher officials ordered
for
further
investigation
which
was
conducted by S.I. Awadhesh Kumar who
again
finding
the
allegations
false,
submitted final report before A.C.J.M.
Khurja which was registered as F.R.No.
322 of 2017 on 27.5.2017.

5. The learned A.C.J.M. after perusal
of the record accepted the final report on
20.11.2018 but the order of the learned
A.C.J.M. was challenged by opposite party
no.2 by filing Crl. Revision No. 436 of
2018 (Smt. Kripa Devi Vs. State of U.P.
And 5 Others) which was allowed on
6.4.2019 by Additional Sessions Judge,
Khurja, Bulandshahar, and the learned
Magistrate was directed to decide the final
report afresh in the light of the judgment of
the revisional Court.

6. In compliance of the order of the
revisional Court, the protest petition was
treated as complaint case and opposite
party no. 2, Smt. Kripa Devi, was examined
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and Anil Kumar
and Jallu were examined as P.W.1 and
P.W.2
under
Section
202
Cr.P.C.
Considering the evidence of the witnesses
and
allegations
levelled
against
the
applicants, they were summoned vide order
dated
12/20.10.2021
as
accused
for
appearance on 22.11.2021.

7. Being aggrieved, the impugned
order
dated
12/20.10.2021
has
been
challenged on the grounds that Manoj,
husband of opposite party no.2 and his
family
members
brutally
assaulted
applicant no.1, Ravikant and caused serious
injuries to him for which applicant no. 4
Ratibhan, father of Ravikant, applicant no.
1 lodged F.I.R. against them at Crime No.
58 of 2017 under Section 147, 148, 149,
342, 308, 323 and 325 I.P.C. in which after
submission of charge-sheet S.T. No. 219 of
2017 (State Vs. Manoj and Others) was
started and the charges have been framed.
In the aforesaid case, the applicants are
witnesses. After that opposite party no.2
tried to initiate false and fabricated
prosecution against the applicants by
moving application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. with
an unexplained delay of two months.

8. It is pertinent to mention that
Dalchand, father-in-law of opposite party
no.2 who is one of the accused of Crime
836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No. 58 of 2018, lodged an F.I.R. at Crime
No. 353 of 2015 against the unknown
persons in which final report has been
submitted against which Dalchand moved
protest petition on 9.7.2018 in which he
first time said that the applicants Ravikant,
Vijayveer and one Yashwant were involved
in the said offence and the learned
Magistrate summoned them as accused on
16.10.2018 under Section 308 and 506
I.P.C. which was challenged by the
applicant Ravikant before the High Court
in Criminal Misc. Application U.S 482 No.
21664 of 2019 and the proceeding of the
impugned case was stayed which was
extended time to time.

9. On the instigation of the family
members of the opposite party no. 2,
another case has been falsely lodged
against the applicant Vijayveer alias Ankit
at Crime No. 271 of 2018 on 5.10.2018
under Section 376 I.P.C. in which the High
Court granted bail to him vide order dated
3.4.2019.

10. There was no material available
on record to indicate that opposite party
no.2 or her family members sustained any
injury and in absence of any injury, it is
clearly established that the applicants were
falsely implicated in the present case. It is
also pertinent to mention that in Case
Crime No. 271 of 2018 u/s 376 I.P.C., the
applicant Vijayveej has been acquitted vide
judgment and order dated 25.11.2020. The
applicants have no criminal antecedents,
they have falsely been implicated in the
present case for ulterior motive hence the
entire
proceeding
and
the
impugned
summoning order be quashed.

11. All the records referred in the
application have been annexed with the
Affidavit filed in support of the application.

12. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned
Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Vibhu Rai
and Ankit Shukla, Advocates, for the
applicants Sri Pandey Balkrishna learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned
AGA for the State and perused the record.

13. It is case of opposite party no.2
that when she was feeding the cattle in the
backyard of her house, accused persons
committed the alleged occurrence and
disrobed her and compelled her to be
naked. It is noteworthy that in the F.I.R
lodged by opposite party no.2, the applicant
no.1 Ravikant is accused no.1. This point
appears to be key point of both the cases as
to how Ravikant was found in the Gher of
opposite party no.2. According to opposite
party no.2, when Ravikant alongwith other
accused persons molested her and torn her
clothes and when she called her family
members, her husband and brother in-laws
Mahesh and Bablu reached there. Seeing
them except Ravikant, rest accused persons
succeeded in escaping and Ravikant was
caught hold by her husband, then accused
person reached there with stick and lathi
and started beating her husband and brother
in-laws. Hearing the noise, villagers Anil
and Jallu reached there and saved them.

14. Contrary to that it is allegation of
the applicants that Ravikant was taken to
the Gher of opposite party no.2 where he
was severely assaulted by which several
grievous and fatal injuries were caused to
him.

15. It is nowhere mentioned in the
F.I.R. lodged by the applicants that on
which reason, the accused had taken
Ravikant to their Gher. No motive or
reason has been assigned by the applicants
for it. At this point learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A.
5 All. Ravikant & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
837
contended that if Ravikant would have
been taken forcefully from his house to the
Gher of opposite party no.2, the occurrence
would have taken place at the house of
Ravikant, not in the Gher of opposite party
no.2. Ravikant was not a child, ill or sick
person that he could be easily taken away
by the family members of the opposite
party no.2. Their argument is that virtually
the facts of the F.I.R. of the applicants do
not contain correct facts of the case as
Ravikant with other accused persons
committed the alleged crime against
opposite party no.2 and when it came into
the knowledge of the family members of
opposite party no.2, they tried to save the
dignity and honour of opposite party no.2
and in such a situation, seeing the nature
and gravity of the alleged crime, family
members of opposite party no. 2 also used
force in their defence. Hence, some injuries
would have been sustained by Ravikant. It
does not mean that in the aforesaid
circumstances,
if
the
applicants
side
received more and severe injuries than the
side of opposite party no.2, it can be said
that the family members of opposite party
no.2 were the assailants or they exceeded
the limit of private defence. It could only
be decided during the course of trial. It is
also a matter of concern as to why only
Ravikant was caught hold and rest are said
to be escaped. In this regard, if fact of the
case of opposite party no.2 is scrutinized,
the fair picture appears that Ravikant had
been caught hold by the family members of
the victim, opposite party no.2 on account
of the impugned alleged occurrence.

16. It is noteworthy that it is not a
case where an F.I.R. about any past incident
had been lodged from the side of opposite
party no.2. Both the F.I.Rs. have been
lodged about the offence alleged to have
been occurred on the same date, place and
time. In such a situation, it can only be
decided after taking evidence during the
trial as to which party was the aggressor
and right culprit and which party acted in
defence and which party started the
commission of crime about which both the
parties have lodged the F.I.R.

17. A very common but serious
charge has been levelled from the side of
opposite party no. 2 that since the brother
of Vijayveer is in police service hence in
spite of best efforts from the side of
opposite party no.2, their F.I.R. could not
be lodged and when the police was directed
to lodge the F.I.R. under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C., both the I.O. tried to save the
family
members
of
the
said police
personnel and submitted final report. So far
as this allegation is concerned, normally no
evidence can be produced in this regard but
it is again noteworthy that the applicants
have not denied that brother of the
applicant accused Vijayveer is not in police
service. Since no adverse presumption can
be drawn in accordance with law, hence, no
such presumption is drawn by the Trial
Court or this Court but it is open for the
side of opposite party no.2 to adduce
evidence that the denial from lodging the
F.I.R. and submission of final report was
the result of unfair practice.

18. Learned counsel for the applicants
has relied on the following rulings'

(a) In Pepsi Food Ltd. And Other Vs.
Special Judicial Magistrate and Others,
(1998) 5 SCC 749, it has been held that
summoning of an accused in a criminal
case is a serious matter. The magistrate
should examine the nature of allegations,
the oral and documentary evidence. He
should not act as silent spectator, he has to
scrutinize the evidence carefully and may
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
himself put question to the complainant and
his witnesses to elicit answers to find out
the truthfulness of the allegations and to
examine as to whether any primafacie case
of commission of crime by the accused is
made out or not.

On the basis of above discussion this
Court is of the view that the principles laid
down in this precedent do not apply in
favour of the applicants.

(b) Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. C.B.I.,
(2015)
4
SCC
609;
M/s
G.H.C.L.
Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. M/s
India Infoline Ltd., AIR 2013 SC 1433;
Lallan
Kumar
Singh
Vs.
State
of
Maharashtra, 2022 Livelaw (SC) 833. In
first case the matter was remanded to the
Magistrate and in all the cases it was held
that Magistrate must duly apply his mind to
form and record an opinion that there is
sufficient basis for proceeding through the
order though there is no need to pass a
detailed order.

In first three above citations the matter
was in respect of commission of economic
offences.

(c) In Krishna Lal Chawla and
Others Vs. State of U.P. And Others,
Manu/SC/0161/2021,
there
was
matrimonial dispute between the wife and
the husband and F.I.R. had been lodged by
both the parties against each other, both
were living separately. The Apex Court was
of the view that no useful purpose would be
served by keeping the matter pending,
hence the F.I.R. and the entire criminal
proceedings were quashed. Here the facts
are quite different. Hence the principles
laid down in this precedent can not be
applied in favour of the applicants.

(d) In Vineet Kumar and Others Vs.
State
of
U.P.
and
Others,
Manu/SC/0351/2017, the accused were
summoned under Section 452, 376 D and
323
IPC
and
revision
against
the
summoning order was dismissed, hence the
appeal was preferred. On the basis of facts
and circumstances of the case the appeal
was allowed by the Apex Court considering
the fact that there were financial transaction
between the accused and the complainant,
her
husband
and
son,
and
on
dishonourment of cheque issued by the
complainant's husband and son, proceeding
under Section 138 N.I. Act were already
initiated by the accused. There was nothing
on record except the bald allegation of the
victim, hence the appeal was allowed and
the entire criminal proceedings were
quashed. The facts of this case are quite
different even it is not denied by the
applicants that any occurrence had not
taken place on the alleged date, time and
place.

(e) In Sundar Babu and Others Vs.
State of Tamilnadu (2009) 14 SCC 244,
the dispute was matrimonial in nature u/s
498-A and Section 4 D.P. Act, 1961, the
Apex Court found that the proceedings
were malafidy and it was 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. In this case the facts and
evidence are quite different, hence, this
precedent is not applicable in favour of the
applicants.

(f) In Ahmad Ali Quraishi and
Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another,
(2020) 13 SCC 435, the complaint was
found to be malafide and animus in nature
due to animosity arising out of partition of
family properties. In this case facts are
quite different and the principles laid down
5 All. Moharpal Maurya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
839
in this case do not apply in favour of the
applicants.

(g) In M.N. Ojha and Others Vs. A.K.
Srivastava and Another, (2009) 9 SCC
682, the complaint was found to be as
counter blast to the action taken by the
appellants in their official capacity for
realizing the loan amount due against the
complainant. Facts of this case are totally
different from the facts of the cited case.
Hence, due to difference of facts and
circumstances of both the cases, this ruling
can not be applied in favour of the
applicants.

19. On the basis of above discussion,
this Court is of the view that an offence
took place on the same date, time and place
for which both the parties have initiated
criminal proceedings. The truth would
appear only after appraisal of the evidence.
It does not appear that the impugned
criminal proceeding initiated on behalf of
opposite party no.2 is an abuse of process
of Court. The grounds taken by applicants
are not sufficient to throw away the case of
opposite party no.2. By quashing the
impugned criminal proceedings, no useful
purpose would be served. Let the truth
prevail after completion of trial.

20. Thus this Court is of the view that
the present application is devoid of merits
and is not sustainable in the eye of law and
is liable to be dismissed.

Order

The present Application U/S 482
Cr.P.C.
is
hereby
dismissed
without
prejudice to the merit of the case.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 839
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 6693 of 2023

Moharpal Maurya ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Nagendra Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sunil Srivastava, A.G.A., Ms. Maimoona
Fatima

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860Sections 366, 120B, 176, 372, 373 & 376AB
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012-Section 5/6 - The Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956-Section 5-immoral
trafficking of the victim aged about 14 to 15
years-victim was sold to accused persons
one after another and they solemnized
marriage of convenience with victim-her
confessional statement as well as consistent
stateme consistent statement recorded u/s
161 and 164 CrPC narrates the same version
of FIR-It is settled law that consent of a
minor girl is immaterial.(Para 1 to 20)

The application is rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Raj, Jaipur Vs Balchand @ Balia (1977)
AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 535

2. Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh
(2002) 3 SCC 598

3. Neeru Yadav Vs St. of U.P. (2013) 15 SCC
422

4. Gurcharan Singh Vs St.(Delhi Admin.) (1978)
1 SCC 118

5. St. of U.P. Vs Amar Mani Tripathi (2005) 8
SCC 21