# Santosh Kumar Sharma & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 452
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-09
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 1820 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-kumar-sharma-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52283
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 156(3), 200, 202, 204 &
482 - The Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Sections 304, 420, 467, 468 & 302 -
Application u/s 482 - for quashing the
summoning order - deceased executed a Will in
favour of applicants - Civil suit for cancellation
of Will filed by complainant - in order to give a
criminal colour to a civil dispute complainant
lodged an FIR - final report was submitted -
direction for further investigation - again a final
report was submitted stating that there was no
reason to take a contrary view to earlier final
report - A protest petition - treated as
complaint - Trial court, only on the basis that,
deceased father who was an 80 years old
person and suffering from old age ailments was
died after a day of execution of Will, issued
summoning order u/s 204 of Cr.P.C. - court finds
that, already a civil suit for cancellation of will is
pending and there is no material before the trial
court as well as no reason has been assigned
that there are sufficient ground to proceed
against applicants - further, the ingredients of
section 420 & 304 IPC are not made out -
process hence, impugned summoning order as
well as entire proceedings are hereby quashed.
(Para - 9, 14, 15, 16)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under which charge-sheet has not been
filed in such event, complainant as well as
Court is at liberty to proceed under Section
217 Cr.P.C. at appropriate stage.

19. Prayers made in this application
are accordingly rejected.

20.

With
the
aforesaid
observation/direction, this application is
disposed of.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 452
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 1820 of 2024

Santosh Kumar Sharma & Ors. ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Anita Singh, Kumari Poonam Rajpoot,
Nirmla Kumari, Prem Babu Verma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Arvind Agrawal, G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 156(3), 200, 202, 204 &
482 - The Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Sections 304, 420, 467, 468 & 302 -
Application u/s 482 - for quashing the
summoning order - deceased executed a Will in
favour of applicants - Civil suit for cancellation
of Will filed by complainant - in order to give a
criminal colour to a civil dispute complainant
lodged an FIR - final report was submitted -
direction for further investigation - again a final
report was submitted stating that there was no
reason to take a contrary view to earlier final
report - A protest petition - treated as
complaint - Trial court, only on the basis that,
deceased father who was an 80 years old
person and suffering from old age ailments was
died after a day of execution of Will, issued
summoning order u/s 204 of Cr.P.C. - court finds
that, already a civil suit for cancellation of will is
pending and there is no material before the trial
court as well as no reason has been assigned
that there are sufficient ground to proceed
against applicants - further, the ingredients of
section 420 & 304 IPC are not made out -
process hence, impugned summoning order as
well as entire proceedings are hereby quashed.
(Para - 9, 14, 15, 16)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. A. M. Mohan Vs State Represented by SHO &
anr. (2024 SCC Online SC 339),

2. Lalankumar Singh & ors. Vs St. of Mah. (2022
SCC OnLine SC 1383),
3. Sachin Gang Vs St.of U.P. & anr.(2024 INSC
72).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Applicants are aggrieved by
impugned order dated 02.12.2023 passed
by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in
Complaint Case No. 22712 of 2022 (Dev
Kumar vs. Santosh Kumar Sharma and
others), under Sections 304, 420 IPC,
Police
Station
Shikohabad,
District
Firozabad,
whereby
they
have
been
summoned to face trial.

2. Complainant has initially lodged a
FIR for offence under Sections 467, 468,
420, 302 IPC that applicants who are his
brother
and
Bhabhi have
committed
offence of cheating and forgery whereby
they have forcefully took signatures and
thumb impressions of his father and
executed a Will on 27.01.2017 in their
favour in exclusion of Complainant and
7 All. Santosh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
453
under unnatural circumstances on very next
day, his father died on 28.01.2017.

3. After investigation in aforesaid
FIR, a final report was submitted. At that
stage further investigation was directed by
Police Officials, however, again a final
report was submitted that there was no
reason to take a contrary view to earlier
final report.

4. A protest petition thereafter was
filed by Complainant, which was treated as
a complaint and thereafter statements of
Complainant and other witnesses were
recorded under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. and applicants were summoned by
means of impugned order dated 02.12.2023
passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C.

5. Mrs. Anita Singh, learned counsel
for applicants submitted that Complainant
has also filed a civil suit for cancellation of
Will. Complainant was mainly aggrieved
that Will was prepared only in favour of
applicants and he was not included and in
order to give a criminal colour to a civil
dispute,
criminal
proceedings
were
initiated. Learned counsel further submits
that only on basis that their father died after
a day of execution of Will, it could not be a
case for offence under Section 304 IPC
without any evidence. It is on record that
applicants' father was an 80 year old
person and was suffering from old age
ailments. He got admitted in hospital on
27.01.2024 and discharged on 28.01.2024,
however, he died on same day. No
objection was made when cremation was
conducted. He refers some statements
recorded during investigation specifically
the statement of Doctor. There are no
ground to proceed against the applicants
and summoning order is liable to be
quashed.

6. Per contra, Sri Mithilesh Kumar,
learned AGA for State and Sri Arvind
Agarwal, learned counsel for Opposite
Party No. 2, has submitted that applicants
have taken advantage of old age of his
father and forced him to execute a Will in
favour of applicants. He was not in best of
his mental condition. Complainant's father
died in suspicious circumstances. It was not
normal that on the very next date of
execution of Will his father got admitted
and was forcefully discharged and later on
same day he died. Factum of filing a suit
for cancellation of Will was not denied.

7. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the material available on
record.

8.

Before
adverting
to
rival
submissions it would be relevant to refer
few paragraph of a recent judgement
passed by Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan
Vs. State Represented by SHO and
another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339:-

"9. The law with regard to
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482
of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and
criminal proceedings has been succinctly
summarized by this Court in the case of
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India
Limited1 after considering the earlier
precedents. It will be apposite to refer to
the following observations of this Court in
the said case, which read thus:

"12. The principles relating to
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure to
quash complaints and criminal proceedings
have been stated and reiterated by this
Court in several decisions. To mention a
few-Madhavrao
Jiwajirao
Scindia
v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988)
1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of
454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan
Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
[(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri)
1059], Central Bureau of Investigation v.
Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5
SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], State of
Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8
SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh
Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC
259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl
Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological
E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma
v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000
SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay
Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri)
19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC
122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. The principles,
relevant to our purpose are:

(i) A complaint can be quashed
where
the
allegations
made
in
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 the case alleged against the
accused. For this purpose, the complaint
has to be examined as a whole, but without
examining the merits of the allegations.
Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous
analysis of the material nor an assessment
of the reliability or genuineness of the
allegations in the complaint, is warranted
while examining prayer for quashing of a
complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be
quashed where it is a clear abuse of the
process of the court, as when the criminal
proceeding is found to have been initiated
with mala fides/malice for wreaking
vengeance or to cause harm, or where the
allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not,
however, be used to stifle or scuttle a
legitimate prosecution. The power should
be used sparingly and with abundant
caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required
to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients
of the offence alleged. If the necessary
factual foundation is laid in the complaint,
merely on the ground that a few ingredients
have not been stated in detail, the
proceedings
should
not
be
quashed.
Quashing of the complaint is warranted
only where the complaint is so bereft of
even the basic facts which are absolutely
necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make
out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely
a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as
also a criminal offence. A commercial
transaction or a contractual dispute, apart
from furnishing a cause of action for
seeking remedy in civil law, may also
involve a criminal offence. As the nature
and scope of a civil proceeding are
different from a criminal proceeding, the
mere fact that the complaint relates to a
commercial transaction or breach of
contract, for which a civil remedy is
available or has been availed, is not by
itself a ground to quash the criminal
proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a
criminal offence or not."

(Emphasis supplied)

9. It is well settled that process of
summoning is a serious matter. It became
more serious when order of summoning is
for offence under Section 304 IPC, i.e.,
culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. It is on record that on investigation
of FIR, a final report was prepared and
despite further investigation again a final
report was submitted that no case is made
7 All. Santosh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
455
out. It is also on record that a suit for
cancellation of Will is filed at the behest of
Complainant against present applicants.

10. In above background, the Court
proceed to consider statements recorded
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as well
as impugned order passed under Section
204 Cr.P.C. and relevant part thereof are
mentioned hereinafter:

Statement
of
Complainant
under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

"नाम र्िाह :- देि कुमार शमाा
पुत्र थि० श्री बृि ककशोर शमाा ननिासी 462
शम्भू नर्र सशकोहाबाद स्िला किरोिाबाद
उम्र 60 िषा ने सशपि पूिाक बयान ककया
कक मेरे वपर्ा िी का थिाथथ्य 2017 में
िनिरी के प्रिम सप्र्ाह से खराब िल रहा
िा। ददनािंक 05. 01.2017 को िािंि ररपोटा मे
मेरे वपर्ा िी की ककडनी में स्थष्ट पाया
र्या िा। मेरे वपतािी का बीमारी के कारर्
मािलसक सन्तुलि ठीक िही था। मेरे वपता
अपिा अच्छा बुरा समझिे में भी असमथग
थे। मेरे बडे भाई सन्तोि शमाग उिका पुत्र
मोिू उफग अलभमन्य ि उिकी पत्िी इन्रा
साजिश करके मेरे वपता की िद्िा िस्था ...
ि बीमारी का फायदा उठाते हुये िाल सािी
से कूटरधित फिी िसीयत अपिे िाम करा
ली। िब कक पूिग में ही सि् 2000 में मेरे
वपता िी ि माता िी िे अपिी स्िास््य
िेतिा से हम दोिो भाईयों के िाम रजिस्री
िसीयत की थी। िसीयत में ललये र्ये वपता
िी के हस्ताक्षर फिी है। उिके अिंर्ूठे के
निशाि भी िबरदस्ती लर्िाये हैं हदिािंक
27.01.2017 को समय 02: 53 बिे दोपहर
में मेरे भाई िे वपता िी से िोखे से िब
िबरि िसीयत करिाई उसी हदि शाम 5:
15 बिे वपतािी को रजश्म मेडडकेयर सेन्टर
आर्रा में भती कराया। डाक्टर के मिा
करिे के बाििूद ि बबिा डाक्टर की सलाह
के हदिािंक 28.01.2017 को मेरे भाई सन्तोि
शमाग वपतािी को घर लसरसार्िंि ले आये
समय करीब 6 बिे मै सूििा लमलिे पर
थािे आई सन्तोि के घर अपिे वपतािी से
लमलिे घर पर पहुिंिा िहािं मैिे देखा कक
मेरे वपता िी का शरीर िीला पडा है ि
उिके हाथों के अिंर्ूठे पर िीली स्याही िर्ी
थी। पूछिे पर वपतािी िे बताया है कक
सन्तोि िे मुझे िबरि िोखे से र्ुमराह
करके िसीयत अपिे िाम करा ली है मुझे
यहािं से से िलों मेरी िाि को खतरा है।
मेरी कभी भी हत्या हो सकती है। िब मैिे
वपतािी को अपिे साथ थािे ि डाक्टर को
हदखािे की बात कही तो सन्तोश उसके पुत्र
ि उसकी पत्िी िे मुझे मारा पीटा और घर
से भर्ा हदया। इसकी सूििा मैिे अपिे
ररस्तेदारों को दी थी। उन्होिे अर्ले हदि
आिे का िायदा ककया। ककन्तु हदिािंक
28.01. 2017 को राबत्र 12- 1 बिे के मध्य
वपतािी की मृत्यु हो र्यी। स्िसकी सूिना
मुझे ररथर्ेदारी द्िारा ददनािंक 29.01.2017
की सुबह समली। मैं अपने भाई के घर
पहुिंिा। मैने पुसलस को मौके पर सूिना दी
िी। ककन्द्र्ु कोई कायािाही नही हुई। र्ब
मैने
नयायालय
से
िारा-
156(3)
456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
सी०आर०पी०सी०
में
मुकदमा
पिंिीकृर्
कराया िा। स्िसमें पुसलस ने मेरे भाई से
समलकर अस्न्द्र्म आख्या प्रथर्ुर् कर दी।
न्द्यायालय में मैने अस्न्द्र्म आख्या के
विरूद्ि प्रेवषर् वपटीशन प्रथर्ुर् ककया। स्िसे
न्द्यायालय में पररिाद के रूप में दिा ककया
है।"

Statement
of
PW-1
under
Section 202 Cr.P.C.

"नाम र्िाह : सशिम्भर दयाल
शमाा पुत्र दादू दयाल शमााननिासी शास्न्द्र्
नर्र थटेशन रोड मेिा ... के सामने
सशकोहाबाद स्िला किरोिाबाद उम्र 64 िषा
ने शपि पूिाक बयान ककया कक देि कुमार
ि सनर्ोश कुमार को मैं िनर्ा हूाँ ये हमारे
ररथर्ेदार है। देि कुमार के वपर्ा का
थिाथथ्य िषा 2017 से खराब िल रहा िा।
उनकी ककडनी में सशष्ट िा। देि कुमार के
वपता अपिे बड़े बेटे सन्तोि कुमार के साथ
लसरसार्िंि में रहते थे उिका स्िास््य
खराब होिे पर सन्तोि िे उन्हें आर्रा में
भती कराया था। ककन्तु अर्ले हदि िह
उिकों अस्पताल से घर लेकर आ र्ये। देि
कुमार को िब इसकी िािकारी हुई तो िह
अपिे वपता को देखिे लसरसार्िंि सन्तोि के
घर पर र्ये। िहािं पर देि कुमार के वपता
िे देि कुमार से कहा कक तुम मुझे यहािं से
ले िलो। इि लोर्ों िे फिी िसीयत मुझसे
करा ली है। मेरी िाि को खतरा है। िब
देि कुमार िे वपतािी को लािे की बात
कही तो सितोि उसके बेटे ि पत्िी िे देि
कुमार को मारपीट कर भर्ा हदया। इस की
सूििा देि कुमार िे मुझे फोि पर यह
उसीहदि दी। औरअर्ले हदि लसरसार्िंि
पहुिंििे को कहा। हदिािंक 29.01.2017 को
मुझे सूििा ककसी कक देि कुमार के
वपतािी की मृत्यु हो र्ई है। हम लोर्
ससरसार्िंि । र्ो देखा कक उनके वपर्ा हािों
की अिंर्ूठे ि अिंर्ुदठयों पर नीली थयाही
लर्ी है। देि कुमार कह रहे िे कक वपर्ा िी
कल ठीक िे। उनकी हत्क्या कर दी है।
पुसलस सूिना पर आयी िी। ककन्द्र्ु पुसलस
ने कोई कायािाही नहीिं की। न ही पोथट
माटाम कराया।"

Statement
of
PW-2
under
Section 202 Cr.P.C.

"नाम र्िाह श्रीमर्ी शीर्ल देिी
पत्क्नी थि० बृि ककशोर शमाा उम्र 85 िषा
ननिासी हाल शम्भू नर्र िाना सशकाहोबाद
स्िला किरोिाबाद ने शपथ्ज्ञ पूिाक बयान
ककया कक मेरे 2 पुत्र ि 4 पबत्रया हैं सभी
शादी शुदा हैं िषा 2017 में मैं अपने पनर्
थि० बृि ककशोर के साि अपने बडे बेटे
सन्द्र्ोश के साि अपने मकान स्थिर्
ससरसार्िंि में रहर्ी िी। मेरे पनत की
ककडिी में लसष्ट था। और उिकी मािलसक
जस्थनत भी ठीक िहीथी। मेरे पनत की
तबीयत खराब रहती थी। िब उिकी
तबीयत ज्यादा खराब हई थी तो मेरा
बडाबेटा सन्तोि कुमार उिकी ईलाि हेतु
आर्रा ले र्या ककन्तु दूसरे हदि ही िावपस
घर छुटटी करा घर ले आया। मेरे पनत िे
7 All. Santosh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
457
ििग 2000 में एक रजिस्टडग िसीयत दोिो
बेटों के िाम की थी। मेरे पनत की तबबयत
खराब होिे का फायदा उठाकर सन्तोि िे
िोखे से िबरदस्ती िीसयत अपिे िामकरा
ली। यह बात मुझे मेरे स्ि० पनत िे मृत्यु
से 2-3 हदि पहले बताई थी। तथा यह भी
कहा था कक ये लोर् मेरी हत्या भी कर
सकते है। तब बीमारी की सूििा मेरे छोटे
बेटे देि कुमार को लमली तो िह हमारे पास
आया। तब फिी िसीयत िाली बात मेरे
वपत िे देि कुमार को बताई थी। देि कुमार
िे कहा कक मैं तुम लोर्ों को ल अपिे साथ
लेकर िलूिंर्ा। ककन्तु हदिािंक 28.01.2017
को राबत्र में सन्तोि अपिी पत्िी और उसके
लडके िे लमलकर मेरे पनत की हत्या कर
दी। कयोंकक शाम को िह पूरी र्रह से बार्
िीर् कर रहे िे। खा िी रहे। मृत्क्यु के बाद
उनका शरीर नीला पडा िा। सन्द्र्ोष ि
उसकी पत्क्नी ने मुझे िुप रहने को कहा
िा।"

Relevant part of impugned
order:

"सुना र्िा पत्रािली का अिलोकन
ककया। अिलोकन से थपष्ट है कक पररिादी
ने
अपने
बयान
अन्द्र्र्ार्
िारा-200
द०प्र०स० में पररिाद किानक का समिान
ककया है र्िा यह कहा है कक उसके वपर्ा
का थिाथथ्य 2017 में िनिरी के प्रिम
सप्र्ाह से खराब िल रहा िा। ददनािंक
05.01.17 को िािंि ररपोटा मे वपर्ा िी की
ककडनी मे ससफ्ट पाया र्या िा। उनका
बीमारी के कारण मानससक सन्द्र्ुलन ठीक
नही िा िह अपना अच्छा बुरा समझने मे
भी अथमिा िे। प्रािी के बडे भाई सन्द्र्ोष
शमाा, उनका पुत्र मोनू उिा असभमन्द्यु पत्क्नी
इन्द्र सास्िश करके प्रािी के वपर्ा की
बृद्िािथिा, दुबालर्ा ि बीमारी का िायदा
उठार्े हुए िालसािी से कूटरचिर् ििी
िसीयर् अपने नाम कराली। िबकक पूिा मे
सन 2000 मे वपर्ा िी ि मार्ा िी ने
अपनी थिथि िेर्ना से दोनो भाइयों के
नाम रस्िथटडा िसीयर् की िी। िसीयर् मे
ककये र्ये वपर्ा के हथर्ाक्षर ििी है उनके
ननशानी अिंर्ूठा के के ननशान भी िबरदथर्ी
लर्िाये है। ददनािंक 27.01.17 को समय
02.53 बिे दोपहर मे भाई ने वपर्ा से िोखे
से िबरन िसीयर् करिाई। उनी ददन सायिं
05.15 बिे वपर्ा को रचमी डेकेयर सेन्द्टर
आर्रा मे भर्ी कराया। डाक्टर ने मना
करने के बाबिूद ि बबना डॉक्टर की सलाह
के ददनािंक 28-01-17 को भाई सिंर्ोष वपर्ा
को घर ससरसार्िंि ले आये समय करीि 6
बिे सूिना समलने पर अपने भाई सिंर्ोष के
घर वपर्ा से समलने र्या िहािं देखा कक
वपर्ा का पूरा शरीर नीला पडा िा उनके
हािों के अिंर्ूठे पर नीली थयाही लर्ी िी
वपर्ा ने बर्ाया िा कक सिंर्ोष ने िबरन
िसीयर् अपने नाम करा ली है। मुझे यहािं
से ले िलो, िान का खर्रा बर्ाया। प्रािी
वपर्ा को अपने साि लाना िाहर्ा िा
ककन्द्र्ु इन लोर्ो ने रोक ददया मारपीट की
घर से भर्ा ददया ददनािंक 28.01.17 को रार्
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
मे वपर्ा की मृत्क्यु हो र्यी। पररिादी के
किनो का समिान उसके साक्षीर्ण द्िारा
ककया र्या है। पत्रािली पर उपलब्ि
मौखखक एििं अलभलेखीय साक्ष्य से प्रकट
होता
है
कक
हदिािंक
28-01-17
को
बृिककशोर शमाग को इलाि हेतु भती ककया
र्या है। लशििी प्लस हॉस्पीटल आर्रा के
पैथोलोिी ररपोटग पत्रािली पर सिंलग्ि जिसमे
टॉजक्सक ग्रेिुअल्स मौिूद पाया र्या है।
डा० तरूर् लसिंघल के बयाि में आया है कक
बृिककशोर शमाग को बीपी हाटग, डायबबटीि,
पेशाि में रूकािट ि उल्टी के कारर् हदिािंक
27-01-17 को अस्पताल में भती कराया
र्या था। पत्रािली पर सिंलग्ि प्रश्िर्त
िसीयत के अिलोकि से प्रकट होता है कक
उक्त िसीयत हदिािंक 27-01-17 को ही
निष्पाहदत की र्यी थी त यह भी
उल्लेखिीय है कक हदिािंक 27-01-17 को ही
िसीयतकताग बृिककशोर शमाग बीपी हाटग,
डायबबटीि, पेशाि में रूकािट ि उल्टी के
कारर् अस्पताल में भती करा र्या था।
बीमारी की इस अिस्था में ककसी व्यजक्त
का स्िस्थ धिि में ककसी विलेख का
निष्पाहदत ककया िािा सिंदेहास्पद है तथा
यह भी उल्लेखिीय है कक कधथत िसीयत
के दूसरे हदि हदिािंक 28-01-17 को
िसीयतकताग की मृत्यु हो र्यी। िादी, िादी
की मािं ि पत्िी के अिुसार बीमारी के
कारर् मृतक बृिककशोर शमाग का मािलसक
सन्तुलि ठीक िही था िह अपिा अच्छा
बुरा समझिे मे भी अस्मथग थे। ऐसी जस्थनत
मे मामला सिंहदर् प्रतीत होता है। इस
मामले में वििारर् आिश्यक है और मामले
के त्य एििं पररजस्थनतयों मे अलभयुक्तर्र्
के विरूद्ि मामला बिता प्रतीत होता है।
असभयुक्र्र्ण सन्द्र्ोष कुमार शमाा, श्रीमर्ी
इन्द्रा देिी एििं मोनू उिा असभमन्द्यू को िारा
304,420 भा०द०स० के अन्द्र्र्ार् प्रिम
दृष्टया मामला बनर्ा न्द्यायोचिर् प्रर्ीर्
होर्ा है, अर्ः असभयुक्र्र्ण उपरोक्र्
वििारण हेर्ु आहूर् ककये िाने योग्य है।
आदेश

असभयुक्र्र्ण
सन्द्र्ोष
कुमार
शमाा, श्रीमर्ी इन्द्रा देिी एििं मोनू उिा
असभमन्द्यू
उपरोक्र्
के
विरूद्ि
िारा
304,420 भा०द०सिं० के अन्द्र्र्ार् वििारण
हेर्ु आहूर् ककया िार्ा है। असभयुक्र्र्ण
उपरोक्र् के विरूद्ि सम्मन ददनािंक 02-0124 के सलए िारी हो। पररिादी पैरिी करे।"

(Emphasis supplied)

11. Complainant in his statement
recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has
narrated the version made in protest
petition which appears to be corroborated
to some extent by statements of witnesses.
However, Court has to examine, whether
on basis of above referred statements there
are sufficient ground to proceed against
applicants as well as whether Complainant
has given cloak of criminality to a case
which is essentially of civil nature.

12. In this regard the reason assigned
by Trial Court in impugned order could
become relevant that on basis of material
available there was a suspicion that father
7 All. Santosh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
459
of Complainant died under unnatural
circumstances and essentially on basis of
such reason it was considered to be a case
of 'cheating', i.e., under Section 420 IPC as
well as Section 304 IPC.

13. At this stage, it would be relevant
to mention few paragraphs of judgments
passed by Supreme Court in Lalankumar
Singh
and
others
vs.
State
of
Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1383 and Sachin Gang vs. State of U.P.
and another, 2024 INSC 72, as under:

Lalankumar Singh (supra)

"38. The order of issuance of
process is not an empty formality. The
Magistrate is required to apply his mind as
to whether sufficient ground for proceeding
exists in the case or not. The formation of
such an opinion is required to be stated in
the order itself. The order is liable to be set
aside if no reasons are given therein while
coming to the conclusion that there is a
prima facie case against the accused. No
doubt, that the order need not contain
detailed reasons. A reference in this respect
could be made to the judgment of this
Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v.
Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4
SCC 609 which reads thus:

"51. On the other hand, Section
204 of the Code deals with the issue of
process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is
sufficient ground for proceeding. This
section relates to commencement of a
criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate
taking cognizance of a case (it may be the
Magistrate receiving the complaint or to
whom it has been transferred under Section
192), upon a consideration of the materials
before him (i.e. the complaint, examination
of the complainant and his witnesses, if
present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks
that there is a prima facie case for
proceeding in respect of an offence, he
shall issue process against the accused.

52. A wide discretion has been
given as to grant or refusal of process and
it must be judicially exercised. A person
ought not to be dragged into court merely
because a complaint has been filed. If a
prima facie case has been made out, the
Magistrate ought to issue process and it
cannot be refused merely because he thinks
that it is unlikely to result in a conviction.

53.
However,
the
words
"sufficient
ground
for
proceeding"
appearing in Section 204 are of immense
importance. It is these words which amply
suggest that an opinion is to be formed
only after due application of mind that
there is sufficient basis for proceeding
against the said accused and formation of
such an opinion is to be stated in the order
itself. The order is liable to be set aside if
no reason is given therein while coming to
the conclusion that there is prima facie
case against the accused, though the order
need not contain detailed reasons. A
fortiori, the order would be bad in law if
the reason given turns out to be ex facie
incorrect."

Sachin Garg (supra)

"18. While it is true that at the
stage of issuing summons a magistrate
only needs to be satisfied with a prima
facie case for taking cognizance, the duty
of the magistrate is also to be satisfied
whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding, as has been held in the case of
Jagdish
Ram
(supra).
The
same
proposition of law has been laid down in
the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. -vs
Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors.
[(1998)
5
SCC
749].
The
learned
Magistrate's
order
issuing
summons
records the background of the case in
rather longish detail but reflects his
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
satisfaction in a cryptic manner...."

(Emphasis supplied)

14. In above background and taking
note that Complainant has already filed a
civil suit for cancellation of Will, at this
stage there is no material before Trial Court
as well as no reason has been assigned that
there are sufficient ground to proceed
against
applicants
to
summon under
Section 420 IPC. The ingredients of
Section 420 IPC that applicants have
cheated and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property, are
not made out as at this stage it could not be
concluded that deceased has signed Will
under force. In this regard I have also
perused photocopy of Will wherein not
only thumb impression of deceased was
marked but he has also put his signatures.

15. With regard to summon under
Section 304 IPC, Trial Court has noted
that Will was executed on 27.01.2017
and executor was admitted in Hospital
on same day and he expired on next
date. Trial Court considered the said
circumstances suspicious and sufficient
to summon applicants. In this regard
Trial Court has taken note of statement
of
Complainant
and
his
mother.
However, without any post mortem
report or without any statement of
Doctor before Trial Court only on basis
that executor of Will, a person aged
about 80 years, died on very next day as
well as without any medical report that
he was a person of unsound mind, I do
not find that there are sufficient ground
to proceed against applicants to summon
them under Section 304 IPC also.
Accordingly, ingredients of Section 304
IPC are also not made out. Court has
taken
note
of
Lalankumar
Singh
(supra) and Sachin Garg (supra).

16. In in view of above and taking
note of A.M. Mohan (supra), application
is allowed. Impugned summoning order
dated 02.12.2023 passed by Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Firozabad as well as entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No. 22712
of 2022 (Dev Kumar vs. Santosh Kumar
Sharma and others), under Section 304, 420
IPC, Police Station Shikohabad, District
Firozabad, are hereby quashed.

17. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 460
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 1861 of 2024

Ms. Kritika Kaushik @ Hanu & Anr.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Ravi Anand Agarwal, Shreya Gupta

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Aravind Kumar Tripathi, Deepak Kumar
Yadav, G.A., Laxmi Narayan Mishra, Rajrshi
Gupta, Rizwan Ahamad

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 34, 108, 328, 344, 347, 384, 406,
500, 506 & 511 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 200 & 202 -
Quashing of entire criminal proceedings,
summoning order - Challenged - Held, in
order to prove offence of extortion there
must be delivery of amount demanded -
As clearly reflected from statements of
Complainant and witnesses the alleged