# Sanjeev Sahu & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 836
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-28
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 46541 of 2018
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjeev-sahu-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50028
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

G.A., Meera Verma, Sri Ranjan Upadhyaya,
Sri
Ramesh
Upadhyaya,
Sri
Ronak
Chaturvedi,
Sri
Shailesh
Pandey,
Sri
Shailesh Upadjyay, Sri Arun Pandey

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 354, 354B, 452, 504 & 506 - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections
156 (3),200 & 202 , The Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -
Section 7/8 , The Schedule Castes And
The
Schedule
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities ) Act , 1989 - Section 3 - High
Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it
comes to the conclusion that allowing the
proceeding to continue would be an abuse
of the process of the court - authority of
the court exists for advancement of
justice and if any attempt is made to
abuse that authority so as to produce
injustice, the court has power to prevent
abuse.)Para - 27,28)

Quashing of - summoning order & entire
proceedings of Complaint Case - complaint filed
by a minor under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was
registered
as
a
complaint
-
minor's
representation was not proper - complaint was
not filed by a proper person - No medical
examination/injury report prepared regarding
incident with victim - Complaint filed against
applicants with connivance - to take revenge of
removal of encroachment done by father of
opposite party no. 2 - continuance of process
issued by applicants - removal of illegal
encroachment done by parents of opposite
party no. 2 - accused persons being related to
media started covering on media and India
news
-
harassment
done
by
powerful
persons.(Para -18,24,25)

HELD:-Complaint is nothing but a sheer misuse
of the process of law, made for the protection of
the children. To prevent abuse of the process of
law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
summoning order, the entire proceeding of
Complaint Case quashed. POCSO Court has
jurisdiction to hear the case against summoning
order under Section of SC/ST Act, as per the
judgement of the coordinate bench of this court
in Rinku (supra). Section 14A of SC/ST Act
provides a provision of appeal from any
judgement, sentence or order of a Special
Court.(Para -25,28,30)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
examination on behalf of all the accused
persons.

(d) Let a certified copy of this
order be sent to the concerned court for its
compliance immediately.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 836
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SADHNA RANI
(THAKUR), J.

Application U/S 482. No. 46541 of 2018

Sanjeev Sahu & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Meera Verma, Sri Ranjan Upadhyaya,
Sri
Ramesh
Upadhyaya,
Sri
Ronak
Chaturvedi,
Sri
Shailesh
Pandey,
Sri
Shailesh Upadjyay, Sri Arun Pandey

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 354, 354B, 452, 504 & 506 - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections
156 (3),200 & 202 , The Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -
Section 7/8 , The Schedule Castes And
The
Schedule
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities ) Act , 1989 - Section 3 - High
Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it
comes to the conclusion that allowing the
proceeding to continue would be an abuse
of the process of the court - authority of
the court exists for advancement of
justice and if any attempt is made to
abuse that authority so as to produce
injustice, the court has power to prevent
abuse.)Para - 27,28)

Quashing of - summoning order & entire
proceedings of Complaint Case - complaint filed
by a minor under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was
registered
as
a
complaint
-
minor's
representation was not proper - complaint was
not filed by a proper person - No medical
examination/injury report prepared regarding
incident with victim - Complaint filed against
applicants with connivance - to take revenge of
removal of encroachment done by father of
opposite party no. 2 - continuance of process
issued by applicants - removal of illegal
encroachment done by parents of opposite
party no. 2 - accused persons being related to
media started covering on media and India
news
-
harassment
done
by
powerful
persons.(Para -18,24,25)

HELD:-Complaint is nothing but a sheer misuse
of the process of law, made for the protection of
the children. To prevent abuse of the process of
law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
summoning order, the entire proceeding of
Complaint Case quashed. POCSO Court has
jurisdiction to hear the case against summoning
order under Section of SC/ST Act, as per the
judgement of the coordinate bench of this court
in Rinku (supra). Section 14A of SC/ST Act
provides a provision of appeal from any
judgement, sentence or order of a Special
Court.(Para -25,28,30)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs
St. of Maha. & ors. (SC), A.G.I. ; N.C.W. ;
St. of Maha., Criminal Appeal No. 330 of
2021

2. Satish Vs Satish & anr., St. of Maha. & anr.,
Libnus, 2021 LawSuit (SC) 739

3. Phool Singh Vs The St. of M.P. , 2021 0
Supreme (SC) 760,

4. Jagmohan Singh Vs Vimlesh Kumar & ors.,
Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 2022
4 All. Sanjeev Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
837
5. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs Akhil Sharda & ors.,
2022 0 Supreme (SC) 598

6. Jahur Khan & 4 ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr. ,
Application U/S 482 No. 5690 of 2021

7. St. of Haryana & ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors.,
1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335

8. Karnataka Vs L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC
699

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

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani
(Thakur), J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla,
learned counsel for the applicants and Sri
Arun Pandey, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

2. By moving this application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants seek to
invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this
court to quash the summoning order dated
29.11.2018 passed by the Special Judge,
POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No. 6, Ghaziabad and the entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No. 77 of
2018 (X Kumari Vs,. Sanjeev Sahu and
others) whereby the applicants have been
summoned to face the trial under Sections
354, 354B, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Section 7/8
POCSO Act and Section 3 of SC/ST Act,
Police
Station
Indrapuram,
District
Ghaziabad.

3. As per facts of the case, an
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was
filed by the minor X Kumari on 01.10.2018
with the allegation that her parents do the
work of ironing the clothes since last 17 years
in Vartalok Apartment. They also do the
work of washing the vehicles in the society.
All the opposite parties (present applicants)
have an evil eye on the applicant and her
mother. The applicant and her mother have
been misbehaved and molested many times at
the hands of these persons, but because of the
intervention of other people of the society, no
complaint was made against them. They also
used to eve tease them and on their protest
they are given threat to turn out from the
society. On 23.09.2018 (Sunday) at about
5.00 p.m. when her mother was doing iron on
the clothes and she was studying sitting near
her mother, all the five persons namely,
Sanjeev Sahu, Dushyant Singh, Harish Chand
Joshi, Mohan Lal and Uday Narayan,
Dushyant using caste based words made
sexual connotations, Harish Chand Joshi also
made the same remarks against her, Uday
Narayan caught hold of her, took her in the
adjacent tin shed and torn her shirt. All the
rest persons (opposite parties/the applicants)
also came. Sanjeev Sahu caught hold of her
hands and Mohan Lal caught hold of her legs.
She was disrobed. She was crying but they
were not ready to hear anything. As soon as
Harish Chand Joshi entered his penis into her
vagina, immediately on the hue and cry of the
applicant and her mother, Shilpi Gupta and
Sandeep Gupta, the residents of the same
society and many other persons came, seeing
them opposite parties made good their
escape. After some time they again came,
abused the applicant and her parents,
destroyed the tin shed and other articles kept
there. The police also came on the spot, but
forcibly got written a different application
from her. One policeman, Sachin Malik gave
her threat also. On 25.09.2018, she sent a
complaint to the S.S.P., but no case could be
registered, hence, the prayer was made to
issue a direction for lodging the FIR.

4. After summoning a police report on
this application, the trial court registered
this application as a complaint and after
recording the statements of the victim
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witness
Shilpi Gupta under Section 202 Cr.P.C., by
passing
the
impugned
order
dated
29.11.2018 summoned all the above five
applicants to face the trial under Sections
354, 354B, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Section 7/8
POCSO Act and Section 3 of SC/ST Act.

5. With the prayer of quashing this
summoning
order
and
the
entire
proceedings of the complaint above, the
present application has been moved by the
applicants and in the supporting affidavit it
is alleged that though the case is sessions
triable, even then the whole witness list of
the complainant was not exhausted by the
trial
court.
The
statement
of
the
complainant was noted by the reader of the
court, while as per the circular letters
issued by this court time to time, it must be
noted down by the Presiding Officer
himself. There is overwriting on the date of
incident in the statement of the witness
Shilpi
Gupta.
The
whole
premises
including the spot in question is covered
with CCTV cameras. No CCTV footage
was placed before the trial court. Neither
any medical of the alleged victim was done
nor the torn clothes were produced before
the court. The mother of the alleged victim,
who is said to be present on the spot from
the very beginning of the alleged incident,
has not been examined and the applicants
have been summoned by the trial court
ignoring the above facts.

6. It is further said that the complaint
has been lodged on false grounds. In fact,
the father of the alleged victim had illegally
occupied land and constructed a 'jhuggi'
inside
the
Vartalok
Apartment.
The
Residents Welfare Association of Vartalok
Apartment sought to remove the same and
in a bid to create pressure on the Residents
Welfare Association this complaint has
been filed. The truth is that on the same day
i.e. on 23.09.2018 the officers of the
Residents Welfare Association in the
presence of the officers of Vartalok Sahkari
Awas Samiti had called on No. 100 for
police force and in the presence of police
force, the illegal constructions made by the
father of the alleged victim inside the
society
was
removed.
This
illegal
encroachment was protested by the alleged
victim, opposite party no. 2 and her family
members and a pressure was made by them
on the Residents Welfare Association to
reconstruct the illegal 'jhuggi'. The video
recording of the said operation was also
made. On the application under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C. of opposite party no. 2, the
police also submitted the report that the
officials of Residents Welfare Association
of Vartalok Apartment in the presence of
Vartalok Sahkari Awas Samiti officials
called the police on number 100 and in the
presence of police force, the encroachment
was removed on 23.09.2018 under the
video recording. In this regard, with a view
to create pressure upon Residents Welfare
Association of Vartalok Apartment, the
applicant has made totally false allegation.

7. The applicant no. 1 - Sanjeev Sahu
is aged about 47 years and is ex-President
of Vartalok Residents Welfare Association
and also the Chief Manager, Times of
India, New Delhi, applicant no. 2 -
Dushyant Singh is 32 years old practicing
Advocate in New Delhi and the resident of
the same society, he is the legal adviser of
the society, applicant no. 3 - Harish Chand
Joshi, aged 51 years, is the present Vice
President of the society and also the Deputy
General
Manager,
Jindal
Saw
Ltd.,
applicant no. 4 -Uday Narayan Singh, aged
66 years, is Secretary of Vartalok Samiti,
retired from the post of Dy. Manager,
Times of India, New Delhi, applicant no. 5
4 All. Sanjeev Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
839
- Mohan Lal, aged 51 years, is a resident of
Vartalok Society and a close associate of
the Secretary, Uday Narayan Singh and is a
class-I officer in Central Government.

8. The opposite party no. 2 and her
family members were the illegal occupiers
of a piece of land on which the hut had
been constructed by them, with active help
of Yashwant Rana, Managing Editor, India
News, his wife Anjana Singh, Shilpi Gupta,
the alleged witness of the present case, her
husband - Sandeep Gupta, Suresh Dobriyal
and Damodar Das Upadhyay. All these
persons are the residents of the same
society, who at some point of time had
been interferring with the functioning of
the society and had also encroached over
the land belonging to the residents of the
society. The notices were issued to them to
remove the encroachments. In the year
2013, Rajiv Kumar, the then President of
Vartalok Sahkari Awas Samiti, made a
complaint to the Superintendent of Police
also, about illegal stay of the father of the
opposite party no. 2 in the society and that
the society and its members were being
harassed by Sonu @ Pappu, father of the
opposite party no. 2. The threat was given
by him to implicate them in false cases.

9. Sandeep Gupta, who has been
helping Pappu, the father of opposite party
no. 2, constantly instigated Pappu to give
threat to the members and officiating
members of the society. Against the bye
laws of the society he had given illegal
electricity connection to Pappu. He had
also encroached upon the land of the
society. He was given notice by the society
to remove the encroachment but he replied
wrongly, claiming the construction to be
justified and that the constructions were
purely temporary in nature, for securing the
privacy of his family. It was made clear by
the society that unless he complies with the
instructions of the society, the proceeding
of the registry of his flat would not be
processed and at last a proposal was passed
in the general body meeting of Residents
Welfare Association of Vatalok Apartment
that the steps be taken for cancellation of
the allotment of the flat of Sandeep Kumar
Gupta. This Sandeep Kumar Gupta is the
main person behind Pappu, initiating and
pressing the illegal activities on behalf of
Pappu, as Pappu having no knowledge of
English, he is continuously pressing the
proceedings
all
prepared
in
English
language on the initiation of Sandeep
Kumar Gupta. Though Sandeep Kumar
Gupta in a bid to misuse the process of law
filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 859 of 2018,
wherein the society put its appearance and
filed its written statement. Sandeep Kumar
Gupta also instituted a suit No. 181 of 2019
against applicant no. 5 and father of
applicant no. 2 Omendra Pal. It was
decided exparte against Sandeep Kumar
Gupta. Thus, Sandeep Kumar Gupta and
Shilpi Gupta are clearly inimical to the
applicants and the opposite party no. 2 is
the puppet of these two. Because of illegal
connection given to Pappu by Sandeep
Kumar Gupta the society had to approach
electricity department regarding this illegal
activity. The illegal encroachment made by
Pappu was being tried to remove since
long.

10. Since the year 2013 and 2014 and
till now the applicant no. 4 Uday Narayan
Singh, who was the Secretary of the
society, was challenging this encroachment
and in 2017 it was resolved unanimously
by the members of the Vartalok Sahkari
Awas Samiti in the general body meeting to
get removed the illegal encroachment done
by the father of opposite party no. 2, which
was given effect on 23.09.2018, which is
840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the date on which this fake incident has
been concocted by the opposite party no. 2
to create pressure upon the applicants. As
per the resolution of the society, on
09.06.2018 the then District Magistrate,
Ghaziabad directed the Circle Officer and
S.H.O. to take proper action in the matter
as per law and consequently under the
video recording, in the presence of the
officers of Vartalok Sahkari Awas Samiti
and the officers of Residents Welfare
Association
Vartalok
Apartment
the
encroachment made by the father of the
alleged victim was removed by the police
after due process. This incident led
opposite party no. 2 to start the present
malafide
proceeding
under
the
guardianship of her mother, who herself
had filed the complaint no. 94 of 2018
against Rajiv Kumar, the then President of
Vartalok Sahkari Awas Samiti and others,
which
was
dismissed
by
the
court
concerned on 18.12.2019, though the order
is said to be challenged by the mother of
opposite party no. 2.

11. Thus, it was argued that no such
incident as shown in the complaint took
place on 23.09.2018. The law made for
protection of children has been misused by
the guardian of opposite party no. 2 by
propping opposite party no. 2 as victim of
having suffered indignities at the hands of
applicants. The incident is completely false,
which has been concocted with a view to
create pressure on the officials of the
society.
Such
proceeding
cannot
be
permitted to continue and the court under
its extraordinary jurisdiction with a view to
impart justice to the applicants may quash
the summoning order and the entire
proceedings of the complaint.

12. In support of their version the
applicants placed before the court the
report of police sent on the application
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of opposite
party no. 2, the statement of vicitim and
Shilpi Gupta and the list of witnesses
supplied by the complainant in the
impugned complaint, carbon copy of
complaint made by Rajiv Kumar (the then
President of the Samiti) to the S.S.P.
Ghaziabad on 15.04.2013, various notices
issued to Sandeep Kumar Gupta and the
replies given by him, photographs of illegal
encroachment done by Sandeep Kumar
Gupta in the society, copy of plaint of Civil
Suit O.S. No. 859 of 2018 (Sandeep Kumar
Gupta Vs. Vartalok Sahkari Awas Samiti
Limited and others through its President,
Rajiv Kumar), orders passed by the court in
this suit, order sheet of Civil Suit No. 181
of 2009 (Sandeep Kumar Gupta Vs. Mohan
Lal and others, applicant no. 5 in this case),
copies of the letters sent to the Executive
Engineer,
EEEUDD,Vasundhara,
Ghaziabad by Vartalok Sahkari Awas
Samiti Limited, resolution of general body
of the society dated 05.09.2017, copy of the
letter to District Magistrate, Ghaziabad
dated 09.06.2018 sent by Rajiv Kumar,
President
of
the
Samiti
regarding
encroachment by the father of opposite
party no. 2, copy of complaint dated
09.07.2018 made by mother of opposite
party no. 2 against applicant no. 4 Uday
Narayan Singh, Harish Chand Joshi,
applicant no. 3, naming four other persons
under Sections 323, 384, 354, 504, 506,
120B IPC and sections of SC/ST Act,
CCTV footage and video clip prepared by
the mobile regarding the proceedings of the
removal of encroachment both dated
23.09.2018, copy of complaint dated
04.02.2017 by Pappu @ Sonu, father of
opposite party no. 2 to SHO, Indrapuram,
order of Special Judge, SC/ST Act dated
18.12.2019 dismissing the complaint of
Rajni, the mother of opposite party no. 2,
4 All. Sanjeev Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
841
photocopy of caste certificate of the
applicant Mohan Lal, a report from SIFS
India Forensic Lab. dated 29.12.2020 to
prove that the video clipping filed by the
applicants are not tempered.

13. In reply, the counter affidavit has
been filed by Pappu, father of opposite
party no. 2 that he was living in a hut at
gate no. 2 in Vartalok Apartment, Sector4C for the last more than 17 years. Some of
the applicants along with some other
residents of the society misbehaved with
his wife and demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- per
year to permit him to reside in the hut for
doing the ironing work in the apartments
and when this demand of their was not
fulfilled he and his family members were
abused and given threat. On number of
occasions his FIR could not be lodged,
though, complaint no. 94 of 2018 was
lodged by his wife against 06 persons
including some of the applicants on
09.07.2018. The applicants are highly
influential persons. They were infuriated
coming to know about this complaint,
which resulted in the incident dated
23.09.2018 and with intervention of some
residents of the apartment including Shilpi
Gupta and her husband, his (Pappu) life
was saved from the applicants. His FIR was
not lodged by the police officer Sachin
Malik. Even if his construction was
unauthorised the same could be removed
through legal procedure only and not by the
force. As admitted in the present case, his
house was demolished in connivance of the
police. He had been residing in the hut for
the last 17-18 years. He served as a
labourer for the constructions of Vartalok
Apartment, thereafter, he is ironing clothes
of the residents of the apartment since long.
There was no occasion to file false
complaint against the applicants. When the
incident of 23.09.2018 was committed with
his daughter then the complaint was filed in
that matter. As he was residing in the
apartment since last 17-18 years, Sandeep
Kumar
Gupta
gave
him
electricity
connection, who lives on the ground floor
of the apartments, so that his daughter,
opposite party no. 2 could study during
night. He never charged any money from
him and pays electricity bills from his own
pocket. He is a washerman and does the job
of ironing clothes. He has nothing to do with
the dispute of Samiti and Sandeep Kumar
Gupta. As the applicants are highly placed
persons, having their own flats in the
apartment, this does not justify the incident
dated
23.09.2018.
The
applicants
in
connivance of local police demolished his
entire house and also damaged the house hold
property just to take revenge with his wife
who filed complaint no. 94 of 2018 against
illegal demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the
applicants. The District Magistrate is not the
competent authority to get his house
removed. The only recourse available to the
applicants was to file an ejectment suit. The
pendrives have not been supplied to him,
therefore, he is not in a position to comment
regarding the same.

14. Along with his reply, copy of the
complaint made by the wife of Pappu dated
09.07.2018, certified copy of the order sheet
of that court and letter of Chief Secretary,
U.P. State, that government orders do not
authorise any authority to enter into any
private dispute of two persons, have been
filed. From the State side also, counter
affidavit has been filed. It is stated therein
that under Section 14A of SC/ST Act only an
appeal is maintainable, hence, the present
proceedings are said to be not maintainable.

15. Rejoinder affidavit reiterating the
previous version has been filed by the
applicants.
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. Thus, on the basis of the
pleadings, it is argued by the learned
counsel
for
the
applicants
that
the
complaint has been filed against the
applicants with the connivance of Sandeep
Kumar Gupta and his wife just to take
revenge of removal of encroachment done
by the father of the opposite party no. 2. By
placing judgement of this court in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 33075 of 2018 -
Rinku Vs. State of U.P., it is argued by the
learned counsel for the applicants that
when apart from sections of IPC, the
proceedings were also under POCSO Act
and SC/ST Act, only POCSO court would
have the jurisdiction to entertain such
proceeding, as is done in the present case
and it is argued that as the impugned
summoning order was passed by the
POCSO court itself, so Section 14A of
SC/ST Act would not apply.

17. While learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 placed before the court
the judgements in Criminal Appeal No.
330
of
2021
-
M/s
Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others (SC), Attorney
General for India; National Commission
for Women; State of Maharashtra; Satish
Vs.
Satish
and
another,
State
of
Maharashtra and another, Libnus, 2021
LawSuit (SC) 739, Phool Singh Vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 0 Supreme
(SC) 760, Order dated 05.05.2022 passed
by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 741 of 2022 - Jagmohan Singh Vs.
Vimlesh Kumar and others, State of Uttar
Pradesh and another Vs. Akhil Sharda
and others, 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 598, and
judgement dated 30.06.2021 of this court
passed in Application U/S 482 No. 5690 of
2021 - Jahur Khan and 4 others Vs. State
of U.P. and another, and submitted that at
this stage of 482 Cr.P.C. the court has not
to look into the correctness of the
allegations made in the complaint nor the
court has to look into the defence of the
applicants. As the complaint discloses
commission of a cognizable offence, there
is no irregularity or illegality in the order
summoning the applicants. It is argued that
the court should not embark upon an
enquiry about the facts whether there is
reliable evidence or not. The jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with
caution, when the criminal proceeding can
be said to be an abuse of the process of the
court, to warrant intervention under Section
482 Cr.P.C. From the FIR a cognizable
offence is clearly made out and the charge
sheet has also been filed under the
cognizable sections, the court has no
ground
to
interfere
in
the
criminal
proceeding in exercise of its power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.

18. If we go through the above
pleadings, it is found that the application
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by
minor aged about 15 years against five
applicants and after receiving the report of
the police station that the incident is false
this application was registered as a
complaint. The complainant being minor
has not been represented in the court by her
guardian rather she has been represented by
pairokar Smt. Rajni w/o Pappu. Smt. Rajni
may be the mother of the minor but the
representation of the minor must be proper.
The minor had to appear in the court
through her legal guardian and not through
a pairokar, hence, the complaint cannot be
said to be filed by a proper person.

19. Again, the counter affidavit in the
present proceedings has not been filed by
the mother of the victim, who is mentioned
as legal guardian of the minor in the
4 All. Sanjeev Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
843
counter affidavit, but the counter affidavit
has been filed by Pappu, the father of
opposite party no. 2 and under what
capacity the counter affidavit has been filed
by Pappu is not made clear. The third
witness, in the list, mother of the minor,
who is said to be witness of the incident
from the initial stage, has not been
produced before the trial court. The
overwriting on the date of incident, in the
statement of Shilpi Gupta has also been
ignored by the trial court.

20. In the whole complaint, it is
nowhere mentioned that the complainant,
the present opposite party no. 2, belongs to
SC/ST and the opposite parties (present
applicants) belong to general category.
From the caste certificate produced by the
applicants counsel, Mohan Lal, applicant
no. 5 appears to belong to the scheduled
caste. No explanation has been tendered by
the learned counsel of opposite party no. 2
in this regard.

21. It is true that the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. be used sparingly in
rare and exceptional cases but in the case
law, State of Haryana and others Vs.
Bhajan Lal and others, (1992 Suppl (1)
SCC 335), the Apex Court held that in
the case where the allegations made in
the
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
and
whether
a
criminal
proceeding is manifestly attended with
malafide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaState of Haryana and
others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, (1992
Suppl (1) SCC 335),king vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him
due to personal grudge, the court can
exercise its power.

22. From perusal of the record, it is
found that it is the version of the opposite
party no. 2 that since last 17 years the
father of the opposite party no. 2 was
residing in the society by making a hut,
the legal right of the father of opposite
party no. 2 regarding making hut has not
been specified. It is also an admitted fact
that on the date of incident itself i.e. on
23.09.2018 in the evening his hut and the
alleged encroachment done by him was
removed with the help of police in
supervision of the applicants and in the
presence of the officers of Vartalok
Sahkari Awas Samiti. When the hut was
removed on the very same day of the
alleged incident and video and mobile
clippings of the hut (tin shed), which is
said to be the place of incident, from 2
p.m. to 6.30 p.m. are placed before the
court and at that time there could be no
occasion for the applicants to commit the
said offence with the minor girl -
opposite party no. 2

23. Admittedly an illegal electric
connection was given to the father of the
opposite party no. 2 by one Sandeep Kumar
Gupta that was being used by the family of
opposite party no. 2 for the last 10 years
without any lawful authority. The illegal
electric connection taken by the father of
opposite party no. 2 and the hut made by
him in the society without any allotment in
his name have been admitted by the father
of the opposite party no. 2. The two
pendrives of the whole incident from 2.00
p.m. to 6.30 p.m. have been filed by the
applicants showing the whole incident of
the removal of the illegal encroachment
made by Pappu, the father of opposite party
no. 2. As the tin shed where the incident
844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
took place, is said to have been covered
with the view of CCTV camera, the
applicants have filed three clippings of the
CCTV footage and two clippings made by
mobile of that area of the time including
the period of alleged incident shown in the
complaint, wherein no such incident has
been shown. If it was so, the opposite party
no. 2/her parents were free to file the
CCTV footage of that area of the time of
incident, but it has not been done by them.
Rather at the time of the incident at about 6
to 8 p.m. many times the alleged victim and
her parents are seen resisting and arguing
with the police and other persons. If any
incident as alleged in the complaint had
taken place at 5 p.m. that day, the victim
and her family members could have made a
complaint to the police at that time but no
such complaint was made to the police
rather the victim is seem opposing the
incident with full enthusiasm and strength.

24. No medical examination/injury
report is said to have been prepared
regarding the incident with the victim. The
documents filed by the applicants above are
on record, which show that in support of
the complaint filed by the opposite party
no. 2, only Shilpi Gupta has come forward
to give statement against the applicants in
the court under Section 202 Cr.P.C., while
long proceedings by the Residents Welfare
Association of the society were running
against her husband regarding the illegal
encroachment
and
illegal
electricity
supplied by him (Sandeep Kumar Gupta) to
the parents of opposite party no. 2. The
documents on record show that whenever
any proceeding was used to start against the
parents of the opposite party no. 2, they
used to give threat to the applicants/then
officialsofficers
of
Residents
Welfare
Association of the society to indulge them
in the false cases and specifically a case
under
Sections
of
SC/ST
Act.
On
09.07.2018 the mother of the opposite party
no. 2 had filed a complaint under Sections
323, 384, 354, 504, 506, 120B IPC and
sections of SC/ST Act against Uday
Narayan Singh, Harish Chand Joshi and
four others, which is said to have been
dismissed vide order dated 18.12.2019 of
the Court of Special Judge. Though, this
order is said to have been challenged in this
court.

25. It is also the version of the
applicants that in continuance of process
issued by the applicants for removal of
illegal encroachment done by the parents of
the opposite party no. 2, including opposite
party no. 2, with connivance of Sandeep
Kumar Gupta, his wife Shilpi Gupta,
Yashwant Rana and his wife Anjana Singh
entered in the house of the applicant
Dushyant Singh on 16.09.2018 and gave
threat to the mother of Dushyant that they
would not spare her son. The pregnant wife
of Dushyant Singh was pushed down with
intention of aborting her child. FIR with
regard to the incident was registered under
Sections 316, 387, 389, 452, 500, 506, 507,
511, 120B IPC. The above named accused
persons being related to media started
covering on media and India news that it
was an harassment done by the powerful
persons. A demand of Rs. 60 lacs was
made to withdraw the complaint against the
applicant and various threats were given to
him. All this clearly shows that the
complaint is nothing but a sheer misuse of
the process of law, made for the protection
of the children.

26. In the judgements placed before
the court by the learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 itself, it has been held
that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
can be exercised when it is justified and
4 All. Sanjeev Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
845
when going through the material on record
the court could reasonably arrive at a
finding that the proceedings are the abuse
of the process of the court. In the
judgement Bhajan Lal (Supra) it has been
held that when a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with malafide and
where the proceedings is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive with a
view to spite a person due to private and
personal grudge, the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised.

27. In state of Karnataka Vs. L.
Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, the three
Judges Bench of the Apex Court held that
the High Court is entitled to quash a
proceeding if it comes to the conclusion
that allowing the proceeding to continue
would be an abuse of the process of the
court. Paragraph-'7' of the judgement can
be quoted as under:-

"7. ......In the exercise of this
wholesome power, the High Court is
entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to
the conclusion that allowing the proceeding
to continue would be an abuse of the
process of the court or that the ends of
justice require that the proceeding ought to
be quashed. The saving of the High Court's
inherent powers, both in civil and criminal
matters, is designed to achieve a salutary
public purpose which is that a court
proceeding ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or
persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled
object behind a lame prosecution, the very
nature of the material on which the
structure of the prosecution rests and the
like would justify the High Court in
quashing the proceeding in the interest of
justice. The ends of justice are higher than
the ends of mere law though justice has got
to be administered according to law made
by the legislature. The compelling necessity
for making these observations is that
without a proper realisation of the object
and purpose of the provision which seeks to
save the inherent powers of the High Court
to do justice, between the State and its
subjects, it would be impossible to
appreciate the width and contours of that
salient jurisdiction."

28. A three Judges bench in State of
Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3
SCC 89, analysed the scope of Section 482
Cr.P.C. and laid down that the authority of
the court exists for advancement of justice
and if any attempt is made to abuse that
authority so as to produce injustice, the
court
has
power
to
prevent
abuse.
Paragraph-'6' of the judgement can be
quoted as under:-

"6........All courts, whether civil or
criminal possess, in the absence of any express
provision, as inherent in their constitution, all
such powers as are necessary to do the right
and to undo a wrong in course of
administration
of
justice........Inherent
jurisdictin under the section though wide has to
be exercised sparingly, carefully and with
caution and only when such exercise is justified
by the tests specifically laid down in the section
itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to
do real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone courts exist."

29. Thus, from the above discussion, it
reflects that to prevent abuse of the process of
law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 77
of 2018 (X Kumari Vs. Sanjeev Sahu and
others) needs to be quashed.

30. So far as the argument that this
court has no jurisdiction to hear the case
against summoning order under Section of
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
SC/ST Act is concerned, the impugned
order has been passed by the POCSO court
and not by the SC/ST Court. As per
judgement of the coordinate bench of this
court in Rinku (supra) the court found that
when in a case the offences both under
POCSO Act and SC/ST Act are arising out
of same crime and may be tried at the same
time, the Special Court of POCSO would
have jurisdiction. Though, it is argued that
this judgement is about the bail application
but in the opinion of the court, Section 14A
of SC/ST Act provides a provision of
appeal from any judgement, sentence or
order of a Special Court and with regard to
SC/ST Act, the Special Court shall be the
SC/ST Court and not the POCSO Court.
The impugned order has been passed by the
POCSO Court, so in my opinion the
argument of the learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 in this regard is not
tenable.

31. In view of the above discussion,
the summoning order dated 29.11.2018
passed by the Special Judge, POCSO
Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.
6, Ghaziabad and the entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 77 of 2018 (X Kumari
Vs. Sanjeev Sahu and others) under
Sections 354, 354B, 452, 504, 506 IPC,
Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act and Section
3 of the SC/ST Act, Police Station
Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad pending
before
the
6th
Additional
District
Judge/Sessions
Judge,
Ghaziabad,
are
quashed.

32. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is, thus, allowed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 846
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 52424 of 2022

Ram Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Upendra Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Rabindra Kumar Singh (AGA), Sri
Shekhar Gangal, Sri Shamsher Singh

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161,164 &
439 - Special Powers of High court or
Court of Session regarding bail , Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148,
323, 452, 504, 506, 304 & 354(Ka) - The
Protection
of
Children
From
Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 7/8 - It is a
sound exercise of judicial discipline for an
order granting or rejecting bail to record
the reasons which have weighed with the
court for the exercise of its discretionary
power - If the order granting bail to an
accused is not supported by reasons, the
same cannot form the basis for granting
bail to a co-accused on the ground of
parity.(Para - 18,38)

Applicant sneaked into house of the victim
(aged about 15 years) - attached to his house -
tried to outrage modesty of minor girl -
deceased was beaten to death by applicant and
other co-accused persons - witnesses including
victim (daughter of deceased) and wife of
deceased fully supported prosecution case -
danda was used in commission of crime -
recovered at the pointing out of the applicant -
bail granted to co-accused.(Para - 27,46)

HELD:- Bail granted to Co-accuseds without
consideration of facts or reason. Case of present
applicant distinguishable from the case of other
co-accused persons. No allegation against them
with regard to outraging modesty of minor