# Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 253
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-05
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 13 of 2024
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-kumar-santosh-kumar-verma-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51133
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154, 156(1),
156(3) & 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 34, 323, 354, 452, 504, 506 &
386 - Applicant challenged order treating
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application as a
complaint and summoning him for offences
under Sections 452, 323, 506, 354 I.P.C.,
alleging false allegations to pressure him.
Court held: (1) Police lacked authority to
investigate allegations in Section 156(3)
application without Magistrate's direction, as
investigation under Section 156(1) requires
FIR registration under Section 154 (Central
Bureau of Investigation Vs Aryan Singh, 2023
SCC OnLine 379). (2) Police report declaring
allegations false was beyond jurisdiction, as
their role is limited to reporting whether a
case was registered, not investigating without
court order. (3) Under Section 482, court
cannot
conduct
a
mini-trial
to
assess
correctness of allegations; applicant can raise
defenses during trial. (4) Application lacked
merit, as validity of allegations must be tested
in trial, not under Section 482 jurisdiction.
Application rejected. (Paras 9-12)
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Application Rejected.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
253
petitioner, Jatin Agarwal, has married with
the lady and living happily with her as
husband and wife, therefore, the F.I.R. u/s
417, 420 and 376 IPC may be quashed.
However, the High Court rejected the
petition, the Apex Court has observed that
considering the aforesaid fact and keeping in
a view that the lady has herself made a
statement before the Apex Court that she has
married with the appellant and now living
happily, quashed the aforesaid F.I.R.

10. In the aforesaid case, notably both
the petitioners are husband and wife and the
petitioner no. 1 has herself made a statement
before the Court that she has married the
petitioner no. 2 and now living happily with
him, therefore, I find this a fit case wherein
the criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial
No. 378 of 2021 arising out of charge sheet
dated 3.9.2020 filed by investigating officer
in Crime No. 117 of 2020 u/s 376, 313, 323,
504, 506, 507 I.P.C. relating to Police Station
-Indira Nagar, District Lucknow in re- State
Versus Devendra Pratap Singh is liable to be
set-aside and quashed.

11. In view of the above, I hereby
quash the entire proceedings of Sessions
Trial No. 378 of 2021 arising out of charge
sheet dated 3.9.2020 filed by investigating
officer in Crime No. 117 of 2020 u/s 376,
313, 323, 504, 506, 507 I.P.C. relating to
Police
Station
-Indira
Nagar,
District
Lucknow in re- State Versus Devendra Pratap
Singh pending in the court of Fast Track
Court, Lucknow.

12. The petitioners shall get their
marriage registered under the "Uttar
Pradesh Marriages Registration Rules,
2017" within one month from today.

13. In view of above, the petition is
allowed.

14. Consequences to follow.

15. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 253
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 13 of 2024

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Verma
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Shitesh Jha, Dr. Shailendra Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154, 156(1),
156(3) & 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 34, 323, 354, 452, 504, 506 &
386 - Applicant challenged order treating
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application as a
complaint and summoning him for offences
under Sections 452, 323, 506, 354 I.P.C.,
alleging false allegations to pressure him.
Court held: (1) Police lacked authority to
investigate allegations in Section 156(3)
application without Magistrate's direction, as
investigation under Section 156(1) requires
FIR registration under Section 154 (Central
Bureau of Investigation Vs Aryan Singh, 2023
SCC OnLine 379). (2) Police report declaring
allegations false was beyond jurisdiction, as
their role is limited to reporting whether a
case was registered, not investigating without
court order. (3) Under Section 482, court
cannot
conduct
a
mini-trial
to
assess
correctness of allegations; applicant can raise
defenses during trial. (4) Application lacked
merit, as validity of allegations must be tested
in trial, not under Section 482 jurisdiction.
Application rejected. (Paras 9-12)
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Application Rejected.

List of Cases cited:

1. Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Aryan
Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine 379 (Para 11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Shitesh Jha, the learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun
Kumar Verma, the learned A.G.A for the
State.

2. By means of an instant application
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the
applicant has assailed validity of an order
dated 20.10.2022 passed by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 25,
Barabanki in Miscellaneous Application
No. 347 of 2022, ordering an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C filed by the
opposite party no.2 to be registered as an
complaint. The applicant has also assailed
validity of an order dated 27.07.2023
passed by the aforesaid court summoning
the applicant to face the trial court for
commission of offences under Sections
452, 323, 506 and 354 I.P.C.

3. The submission of the learned
counsel for the applicant is that on the
application under section 156(3) filed in the
court, a report was called for and the police
has submitted a report dated 20.09.2022
stating that the applicant has filed an F.I.R
No. 456 of 2022 under Sections 34, 323,
354, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C in P.S Masauli,
District Barabanki.

4. After lodging of the aforesaid
F.I.R., some persons from the other side
again attacked the applicant's house in the
night of 14.08.2022 regarding which
another F.I.R No. 467 of 2022 under
Sections 34, 323, 386, 504, 506 I.P.C. has
been lodged. The police reported that the
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C has
been filed to put pressure on the applicant.
The report also stated that the incident
alleged in the application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C could not be established in
investigation and the allegations were
found to be false and baseless. Towards the
closure of the report, it was stated that no
case has been registered regarding the
incident lodged in the complaint.

5. The learned counsel for the
applicant has submitted that a co-accused
Dr. Chandra Kant Verma has filed an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C No.
10672 of 2023 in which an interim order
has been passed on 01.11.2023.

6. The learned A.G.A has opposed the
application and he has submitted that while
deciding an application under section 482
Cr.P.C., this court cannot hold a mini trial
to adjudicate upon the correctness of the
allegation.

7. I have considered the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case and the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the applicant.

8. In the application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C, the opposite party no.2
alleged commission of a cognizable offence
by six accused persons and it was further
stated in the application that the applicant
had
given
an
application
to
the
Superintendent of Police, Barabanki, but no
action was taken in furtherance thereof.

9. While submitting a report on this
application, the police is merely required to
intimate where any case has been registered
on the basis of the allegations levelled in
1 All. Kismati & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
255
the compliant or not. When the application
is pending consideration of the court, the
police is not expected to carry out the
investigation into the allegations levelled in
the application filed before the court,
without a direction to this effect being
issued by the court.

10. The police may investigate a
cognizable offence under Section 156(1),
after registration of an F.I.R under Section
154 Cr.P.C but without registration of an
F.I.R, the police cannot initiate any
investigation. When no F.I.R was registered
and merely an application under Section
156(3) was filed, investigation can be
carried out under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C
only under an order passed by a Magistrate.
Therefore, the police has acted beyond
authority in carrying out an investigation
and submitting a report to the Magistrate
that
the
allegations
levelled
in
the
complaint could not be established.

11. In the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation vs. Aryan Singh Etc., 2023
SCC Online 379, the compliant has been
registered and the applicant has been
summoned to face the trial, he can raise all
the pleas available to him and submit
evidence in his defense and the correctness
of the allegations levelled in the application
will be decided by the trial court after the
parties have lead their evidence in support
of their respective case. While deciding an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this
court cannot go into correctness of the
allegation and the application cannot be
allowed on the ground that the allegations
are false.

12. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the application lacks merits and
the same is accordingly rejected.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 255
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 23 of 2024

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Aditya Tiwari, Deepranjan Pandey

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 156(3), 200, 202 & 482 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section - 323,
504 & 506 - Application u/s 482 - for quashing
the entire criminal proceedings - during
pendency of a Civil dispute between the parties
- an incident u/s 323, 504, 506 was took place
- FIR - not registered - complaint was filed -
controverted allegations - final report - protest
petition - allowed - complaint case registered -
Statement recorded - summoned issued - plea
taken that proceedings have been instituted
maliciously because of a property dispute is
between the parties - court observed that - the
power of quashing a criminal proceedings
should be exercise very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare
cases and this 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 - court held
that, there is sufficient evidence for prosecution
of the applicants and it cannot be said at this
stage that the proceedings are liable to be
quashed for the reason that the same have
been maliciously instituted and that can only be
decided after the parties adduce in support of
their respective cases - accordingly, Application
is dismissed. (Para -10, 13)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)