# Shabban Khan & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 2299
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-09
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 36921 of 2018
- **Bench:** Vikram D. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shabban-khan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52065
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 212, 213 & 482 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections - 323,
506 & 498-A - The Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 - Sections - 3 & 4 - Application on
behalf of the Sisters-in-law & Brother-in-law -
for quashing the entire criminal proceeding -
FIR - as per prosecution case, allegations are
that, after marriage, when the informant come
to her matrimonial home, accused persons are
taunted her for brining less dowry and further
demanded more dowry - court finds that, the
law
contemplates
demand
of
dowry
as
punishable, however, the taunting for giving less
gifts by itself is not a penal offence - more so,
the demand alleged to have been made against
the accused persons are general and wholly
vague in nature - the date, time and manner in
which the demand was made is also not been
St.d in prosecution case - in terms of section 498A IPC the cruelty would be any wilful conduct which
is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman
to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health of the woman are also
not shown by the prosecution - even during
investigation no specific role has been assigned to
the applicants - held, criminal proceedings against
applicants are absurd and improbable that no
prudent mind can arrived at conclusion for
proceedings against applicants in view of the
vague allegations - hence, entire proceedings is
hereby
set-aside
-
present
application
is
accordingly partly allowed.
(Para - 23, 31, 32, 33, 34)

Application u/s 482 partly Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Shabban Khan & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
2299
on 28.5.2022 i.e. around two and half
month after the alleged incident. Opposite
party no. 2 did not offer any plausible
explanation for such inordinate delay.

25. On the basis of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the present case
is squarely covered under clause (7) of the
judgement Bhajan Lal vs. State of
Haryana (supra). In view of the foregoing
discussion, the Court is of the view that
present proceedings are manifested with
malafide and are instituted with an ulterior
motive due to private and personal grudge.
Therefore, the application deserved to be
allowed.

26.

Accordingly,
the
present
application U/s 482 is allowed.

27. The entire proceedings against the
applicants in aforesaid case is hereby
quashed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2299
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 36921 of 2018

Shabban Khan & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Mukhtar Alam, Saquib Mukhtar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Pankaj Satsangi

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 212, 213 & 482 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections - 323,
506 & 498-A - The Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 - Sections - 3 & 4 - Application on
behalf of the Sisters-in-law & Brother-in-law -
for quashing the entire criminal proceeding -
FIR - as per prosecution case, allegations are
that, after marriage, when the informant come
to her matrimonial home, accused persons are
taunted her for brining less dowry and further
demanded more dowry - court finds that, the
law
contemplates
demand
of
dowry
as
punishable, however, the taunting for giving less
gifts by itself is not a penal offence - more so,
the demand alleged to have been made against
the accused persons are general and wholly
vague in nature - the date, time and manner in
which the demand was made is also not been
St.d in prosecution case - in terms of section 498A IPC the cruelty would be any wilful conduct which
is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman
to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health of the woman are also
not shown by the prosecution - even during
investigation no specific role has been assigned to
the applicants - held, criminal proceedings against
applicants are absurd and improbable that no
prudent mind can arrived at conclusion for
proceedings against applicants in view of the
vague allegations - hence, entire proceedings is
hereby
set-aside
-
present
application
is
accordingly partly allowed.
(Para - 23, 31, 32, 33, 34)

Application u/s 482 partly Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kahkashan Kausar Vs St. of Bihar (2022 6 SCC
599),

2. Achin Gupta Vs St. of Har. (2024 INSC 369),

3. Neelu Chopra Vs Bharti (2009 10 SCC 184),

4. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. 1 SCC
335),

5. SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla
(2005 8 SCC 89).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram D.
Chauhan, J.)
2300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Sri Saquib Mukhtar, learned
counsel for the applicants and learned AGA
for the State.

1-A. No one has appeared on behalf of
opposite
party
no.2.
Previously
on
20.02.2024, the case was proceeded exparte against opposite party no. 2.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for
quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal
Case No. 6213 of 2018 (State vs. Shabban
Khan and others) under Sections 498A,
323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act,
P.S. Bilsi, District Budaun arising out of
Case Crime No. 689 of 2017 as well as
charge-sheet dated 20.05.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that initially the present application
was filed by five applicants, however, relief
in respect of applicant no. 1-Shabban Khan
(husband) has been rejected vide order
dated 11.10.2018 and during pendency of
the application, applicant no. 2-Shahidan
Khan has died. As such, counsel for the
applicants is not pressing the application in
respect of applicant nos. 1 and 2, namely
Shabban Khan and Smt. Shahidan Khan,
respectively.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that he is pressing the application
only on behalf of applicant nos. 3, 4 and
5, who are married sister-in-law, brotherin-law and unmarried sister-in-law.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel
for
the
applicants
that
the
first
information
report
was
lodged
on
04.12.2017 by the opposite party no. 2wife with allegations that on 07.05.2017,
the opposite party no. 2 was married with
applicant no. 1-Shabban Khan and dowry
was given at the time of marriage.
Thereafter, husband and other accused
persons were harassing the opposite party
no. 2 and her family members for dowry.
Learned counsel for applicants submits
that allegations are also with regard to
assault, however, there is no injury report
in respect of the same.

6. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the applicants that allegations
with regard to threatening have also been
levelled in the first information report.
Statement of the informant recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is verbatim to
the allegations in the first information
report. He submits that general and vague
allegations have been made in the FIR
against applicant nos. 3, 4 and 5,
however, no specific role has been
assigned. Reliance has been placed on the
judgment of Supreme Court rendered in
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and
others vs. State of Bihar and others1, to
submit
that
the
present
criminal
proceedings against applicant nos. 3, 4
and 5 are liable to be quashed.

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the
present application, however, he does not
dispute the fact that no specific role has
been assigned in the present case in respect
of applicant nos. 3, 4 and 5.

8. Criminal law is set in motion by
lodging of the First information report or
complaint. The investigation is carried
upon to find the truth in allegations. Setting
in
motion
criminal
law
entails
consequences
including
curtailing
of
liberty
of
individual.
The
criminal
prosecution is based on the nature of
allegations and the evidence found during
investigation. It is important for the
prosecution to provide material details of
5 All. Shabban Khan & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
2301
the allegations and evidence to support
their allegations.

9. Vague and ambiguous allegation
can violate the right of the accused to due
process of law and fair trial. It is
fundamental principal of law that accused
is subjected to fair trial. Vague allegation
has significant effect on defence by
creating uncertainty. Without specific
details and evidence, the defence of
accused may be prejudiced or accused may
not be able to effectively defend himself.

10. Vague allegations can affect
the defence of accused by making it
difficult to formulate a targeted defence
strategy.
Without
clear
specifics
or
evidence to address, accused may struggle
to refute the allegations or present a
compelling counter argument. Lawyers
typically rely on specific information to
prepare their case, such as dates, time,
location, and witnesses. Vague allegations
lack these crucial details, leaving the defence
to speculate or generalize their response,
which can weaken their defence in court. The
mere suggestion of wrongdoing, without
substantiation, can lead to stigma and
prejudice against the accused, making it
harder for them to receive a fair trial.
Moreover, vague allegations may prolong
legal proceedings as the defence attempts to
gather more information to understand the
allegations.

11. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal2, the supreme court has has laid down the
categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of
process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. One of the categories
pointed out in the said judgement is stated in
para 102 (5) which is quoted herein below :

"(5) Where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which
no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused."

12. In law, prudent person is a
hypothetical person who in the facts and
circumstances would conduct in a reasonable,
just and fair manner. In the context of vague
allegations at the stage of cognizance or
summoning of accused, it is to be examined
whether on the basis of the allegations in the
complaint or the first information report and
the evidence collected during investigation it
can be said that a prudent person would come
to the conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
The insufficiency of ground for proceedings
against an accused may also arise when
material particulars in respect of the alleged
offence are absent. The sufficiency of
material against an accused is a condition
precedent for proceedings against an accused.

13. In S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
v. Neeta Bhalla3, the Supreme Court has
laid emphasis that the complaint must
contain material to enable the court to make
up mind for issuing process.

"5.Section 203 of the Code
empowers a Magistrate to dismiss a
complaint without even issuing a process. It
uses the words "after considering" and "the
Magistrate is of opinion that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding". These
words suggest that the Magistrate has to
apply his mind to a complaint at the initial
stage itself and see whether a case is made
out against the accused persons before
issuing process to them on the basis of the
complaint. For applying his mind and
forming an opinion as to whether there is
2302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sufficient
ground
for
proceeding,
a
complaint must make out a prima facie case
to proceed. This, in other words, means
that a complaint must contain material to
enable the Magistrate to make up his mind
for issuing process. If this were not the
requirement, consequences could be farreaching. If a Magistrate had to issue
process in every case, the burden of work
before the Magistrate as well as the
harassment caused to the respondents to
whom process is issued would be
tremendous. Even Section 204 of the Code
starts with the words "if in the opinion of the
Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence
there is sufficient ground for proceeding". The
words "sufficient ground for proceeding" again
suggest that ground should be made out in the
complaint
for
proceeding
against
the
respondent. It is settled law that at the time of
issuing of the process the Magistrate is required
to see only the allegations in the complaint and
where allegations in the complaint or the
charge-sheet do not constitute an offence
against a person, the complaint is liable to be
dismissed."

14. The question therefore arises what
is the material which is required to be
before the court to issue process under
criminal law. The material facts and
particulars to constitute an offence are
required to be shown by the prosecution
before the court proceeds to issue the
process. The material facts and particulars
are those facts which essentially would be
required to constitute an offence. These
facts would also include such facts which
the law recognizes as important facts for
proceeding with the trial of the case. These
facts are also necessary to bring fairness in
the process of trial.

15. The rule of law requires that
the accused is visited with specific
allegations
in
criminal
prosecution.
Specific allegation under criminal law
would require that date, time and place of
alleged offence is specified. The details of
the person against whom the offence is
committed or the thing in respect of which
the offence was committed are disclosed.
The allegations should also describe the
manner in which the offence is committed.

16. In Neelu Chopra v. Bharti4, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised the
need for specific and proper allegation in
criminal law.

 "9.In order to lodge a proper
complaint, mere mention of the sections
and the language of those sections is not be
all and end all of the matter. What is
required to be brought to the notice of the
court is the particulars of the offence
committed by each and every accused and
the role played by each and every accused
in committing of that offence."

17. The Criminal procedure code not
only provide the procedure to proceed
against any person under criminal law. It
also provides various checks to ensure that
the criminal law is applied fairly on any
accused person. The aforesaid aspect of
fairness in criminal trial is essential in view
of Article 21 of the Constitution. One of the
essential part of criminal trial after the
cognizance is taken is the framing of charge
against an accused person. The object of
framing of charge is to enable an accused to
have a clear idea of what he is being tried
for and the essential facts which the
accused is required to meet in the trial.
Section 212 of the criminal procedure code
mandates that the charge shall contain such
particulars as to the time and place of the
alleged offence and the person against
whom or the thing in respect of which it
5 All. Shabban Khan & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
2303
was committed as a reasonably sufficient to
give accused notice of the matter with
which he is charged. Section 213 of the
criminal procedure code further requires
that the manner of committing offence must
be stated in the charge.

18. The aforesaid requirement of law
indicate that the aforesaid information is
required to be disclosed to accused so that
he is able to meet out the same at the trial.
An incomplete, vague and omnibus
allegation without specific details would
violate section 212 and 213 of the Cr.P.C.
It is after the Magistrate/court takes
cognizance of the offence at a subsequent
stage there is no possibility of supplying the
aforesaid details to the accused if the same
is not part of the final report/charge-sheet.
It is therefore imperative that when the
summons are issued the requirement of law
is seen by the court concerned to have been
fulfilled prior to taking cognizance.

19. It is true that the first information
report is not an Encyclopedia and may not
contain all material details however once an
investigation is carried out it is the duty of
the investigating officer to investigate into
the material facts and particulars before
submission of charge-sheet. The aforesaid
material particulars would be necessary at
the time of framing of charge. Once the
material particulars are missing then in the
event the trial is proceeded with the same
would be in violation of the mandate under
section 212 and 213 of the Cr.P.C. It is the
duty of the investigating officer to
investigate whether the material particulars
are available in respect of the offence in
question.

20. The material particular form the
foundation for proceeding against an
accused person under criminal law. It
would be wholly impermissible under law
for the informant/complainant to make
allegation with regard to committing of an
offence by an accused person without the
material particulars as to how the offence
has been committed being stated. A prudent
man would never reach a conclusion for
proceeding against accused person when
the material particulars has not been
provided by the prosecution. It is to be
reminded that criminal law machinery has
traits of curtailing liberty of an individual
as such allegations against accused person
must have factual foundation. Mere
mention of the language of the section by
itself would not be sufficient for the
prosecution to proceed against the accused
person.
The
particulars
of
offence
committed by each accused person and the
role played by each person in committing
the offence is essentially required.

21. The effect of absence of specific
allegations have been considered by the
Supreme Court in Achin Gupta Vs State
of Haryana5, which is quoted herein
below:

"25. If a person is made to face a
criminal trial on some general and
sweeping allegations without bringing on
record any specific instances of criminal
conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process
of the court. The court owes a duty to subject
the allegations levelled in the complaint to a
thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie,
whether there is any grain of truth in the
allegations or whether they are made only
with the sole object of involving certain
individuals in a criminal charge, more
particularly when a prosecution arises from
a matrimonial dispute"

22. The Supreme Court has laid down
that general and omnibus allegations
2304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
without any specification are prima facie
indicative of matrimonial dispute between
the parties and as such do not warrant
prosecution. In this respect attention is
drawn to the observations made by
Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar v.
State of Bihar6,, which is quoted herein
below:

"18. Coming to the facts of this
case, upon a perusal of the contents of the
FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that
general allegations are levelled against the
appellants. The complainant alleged that
"all accused harassed her mentally and
threatened
her
of
terminating
her
pregnancy". Furthermore, no specific and
distinct allegations have been made against
either of the appellants herein i.e. none of
the appellants have been attributed any
specific role in furtherance of the general
allegations made against them. This simply
leads to a situation wherein one fails to
ascertain the role played by each accused
in furtherance of the offence. The
allegations are, therefore, general and
omnibus and can at best be said to have
been made out on account of small
skirmishes.
Insofar
as
husband
is
concerned, since he has not appealed
against the order of the High Court, we
have not examined the veracity of
allegations made against him. However, as
far as the appellants are concerned, the
allegations made against them being
general and omnibus, do not warrant
prosecution."

23. In the present case, applicant nos.
3, 4 and 5 are proceeded with under section
498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3⁄4 Dowry
Prohibition Act. As per the prosecution
case, informant-wife was married to
applicant no. 1 on 07.05.2017. The first
information report is lodged on 04.12.2017.
The first information report is lodged
against accused person under the above
mentioned sections. It is alleged that at the
time of marriage the parents of the
informant has given to applicant no. 1
rupees 4 lakhs for purchase of plot, one
motorcycle, fridge, cooler, television,
double bed, washing machine and to the
informant Jewellary. After marriage when
the informant went to the house of her
husband all the accused person started
harassing for giving less dowry in the
marriage. The accused person demanded
one car in dowry and assaulted the
informant. When the informant confronted
the accused person in respect of demand of
dowry, the accused persons assaulted the
informant. The conduct of accused person
was disclosed to the parents of informant by
the informant herself and when the parents
of informant intervened it was stated by
accused person that without giving car they
will not keep the informant at her
matrimonial home. It is further alleged that
the accused persons were harassing the
informant and were making the informant
do the daily work of household. It is further
alleged in first information that accused
persons have administered medicine to the
informant as a result of the same she
became sick and thereafter the informant
was thrown out of house just before the
festival of Eid and threatened not to come
back
to
matrimonial
home
without
fulfilling the demand of car otherwise the
informant would be killed. Thereafter
conciliation meetings have been held
however the accused person are not ready
to keep informant with them.

24. The statement of the victim under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded
during investigation a copy of the same has
been filed along with the present 482
application. A perusal of the aforesaid
5 All. Shabban Khan & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
2305
statement
of
the
informant
during
investigation would demonstrate that the
informant has reiterated the allegations
made in first information report. The
informant has also stated that no medical
examination was made as she had not
received any external injury.

25. The investigating officer has also
recorded statement of Nirale Khan who is
father of the informant. The aforesaid
witness has stated that as daughter was
married on 07.05.2017 with the applicant
no. 1 and in the marriage he had given
rupees 400,000/- for purchase of plot and
other gift items to the tune of rupees 10
lakhs. He has further stated that when his
daughter reached her matrimonial home
then the accused person were harassing the
informant for less dowry given at the time
of marriage and demanded for the dowry
and assaulted the informant. He has further
stated that the aforesaid incident was
informed by his daughter. It is also alleged
that the accused persons had thrown out
informant from the matrimonial home just
before the festival of Eid and has stated not
to come back without demand of car being
fulfilled. It is also alleged that accused
persons have administered some medicine
to the informant as a result of same
informant became sick. The aforesaid
witness has further stated that the receipt of
the item given in dowry is lost and is not
available.

26. The investigating officer has
further recorded the statement of Smt
Junaida who is mother of informant. The
aforesaid witness has stated that informant
was married to applicant no 1 on
07.05.2017. It is further stated that in the
marriage rupees 4 lakh was given for
purchase of plot. It is also stated that fridge,
cooler,
washing
machine,
television,
double bed, jewellery and other items were
given at the time of marriage. In the
marriage rupees 10 lakh was spent. It is
further stated that when the informant went
to the matrimonial home after marriage she
was harassed by the accused person for
bringing less dowry and demanded one car.
Before the festival of Eid accused persons
assaulted the informant and thrown her out
of the house and had threatened not to come
back without fulfilling the demand for car
otherwise she would be killed. It is also
stated that the conciliation process was also
undated, however, accused persons did not
agree.

27. Thereafter the investigating
officer has submitted charge-sheet on
20.05.2018 and the cognizance has been
taken
by
the
court
concerned
on
27.07.2018. The applicants in the chargesheet has been proceeded under section
498A, 323, 506 of the IPC and Section 3/4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

28. It is further to be seen that
section
498A
IPC
provides
penal
consequences where the husband or relative
of the husband of a woman subjects such
woman to cruelty. The cruelty has been
explained in explanation appended to
provisions of section 498A IPC. There are
two explanations provided under the
aforesaid provision for interpretation of the
word cruelty provided under the aforesaid
section. The explanation (a) provides that
the cruelty would mean any willful conduct
which is of such nature as is likely to drive
the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether
mental
or
physical).
The
explanation (b) provides cruelty would
mean harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coerce her or
any person related to her to meet any
2306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure
of her or any person related to her to meet
such demand.

29. The law contemplates a
woman to cruelty by the husband or relative
of the husband where the demand are
unlawful for any property or valuable
security and the woman is harassed in
respect of the same. The demand for
property or valuable security is required to
be unlawful. The demand would be
unlawful where the same is prohibited by
law or the law punishes the aforesaid
demand. The demand for dowry is
prohibited under the law and is also a
punishable offence. The demand of an
amount or thing by the husband or the
relative of the husband is required to be
unlawful. Where the demand has been
made by the husband or his relative after
marriage, however, not in connection with
the marriage of the parties the same may not
amount to dowry in accordance with the
definition of Dowry under Section 2 of
Dowry Prohibition Act. However, where
any demand for property or valuable
security is made before or any time after
marriage in connection with the marriage of
the parties, the same would come within the
mischief of section 498A IPC. The words
in connection with the marriage of the
parties has significance that the demand for
dowry is made by parties to the marriage.

30. A perusal of the first information
report, as well as, the statement of the
witnesses,
above
mentioned,
would
demonstrate that there is allegation with
regard to payment of rupees 4 lakhs to
applicant no.1 for purchase of plot at the
time of marriage. The first information
report and the statement of the witness does
not allege that the applicant nos. 3, 4 and 5
demanded the aforesaid amount from the
informant or her family members. In the
first information report or the statement of
the witness it has not been stated that the
various items given at the time of marriage
were demanded by the applicant no. 3, 4
and 5.

31. As per prosecution case, it is
alleged that after marriage when the
informant came to the matrimonial home,
accused persons taunted for bringing less
dowry and further demanded one car and
have assaulted the informant. The law
contemplates
demand
of
dowry
as
punishable, however, the taunting for
giving less gifts by itself is not a penal
offence. The demand alleged to have been
made by the accused person is wholly
vague in nature. The date, time and manner
in which the demand was made is not been
stated in the prosecution case. General and
vague allegations with regard to demand of
dowry by the applicant nos. 3, 4 and 5 after
marriage has been made. It has not been
stated that what role has been played by
each accused person in respect of the
alleged offence.

32. There are allegations against the
accused person for physical assault,
however, neither the date has been stated
when the assault took place nor the role
assigned to each accused person is stated in
the prosecution case. It has not been shown
by the State that there was any injury report
in respect of the alleged incident. In terms
of section 498A IPC the cruelty would be
any willful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health of the woman.
It has not shown by the prosecution whether
the informant has suffered any grave injury
or danger to life, limb or health. The
5 All. Smt. Madeena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2307
omnibus allegations have been made
against the applicant no 3, 4 and 5,
however, what role has been played by the
aforesaid applicants is not stated in
prosecution case.

33. It is also alleged in first
information report that the applicants have
threatened for life if the car is not given in
dowry. The applicants are proceeded under
section 506 IPC in this respect. Even in this
respect allegations are general in nature and
during investigation no specific role has
been assigned to the applicant nos. 3, 4 and
5. The allegations against applicant nos. 3,
4 and 5 are not such that a prudent man can
arrive at the conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
applicant nos. 3, 4 and 5. Learned AGA
could not show any material to substantiate
that specific allegations existed against the
applicant nos. 3, 4 and 5. The State has also
not brought on record any injury report in
respect of allegation of assault nor it is
shown that during investigation specific
allegations
have
been
found
by
investigating officer against the applicant
nos. 3, 4 and 5.

34. In view of the fact that allegations
in the present case are vague in nature and
lacks specification in respect of applicant
nos. 3, 4 and 5, the criminal proceedings
against applicant nos. 3, 4 and 5 are absurd
and improbable that no prudent mind can
arrive at conclusion for proceeding against
applicants in view of the vague allegations.

35. In view thereof, the present
criminal proceedings against applicant nos.
3, 4 and 5 are bad in law, therefore, entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6213 of
2018 (State vs. Shabban Khan and others)
under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and
Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Bilsi, District
Budaun arising out of Case Crime No. 689
of 2017 as well as charge-sheet dated
20.05.2018, is hereby set aside and quashed
against applicant nos. 3, 4 and 5, namely,
Smt. Mehtab, Achchan Khan and Kumari
Nida, respectively.

36. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, partly
allowed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2307
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Writ-B No. 1596 of 2024

Smt. Madeena ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Krishna Kant Dwivedi

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Abhishek Kumar Yadav, Bhola Nath Yadav,
C.S.C., Deepak Gaur

A. U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections
35(2) & 207 - Mutation - Appeal When
Mutation Proceedings Are Transferred to
Another Tehsil - Territorial Jurisdiction -
Whether the territorial jurisdiction to
entertain or decide an appeal against an
order passed in a mutation proceeding
transferred outside the Tehsil will lie in
the transferred Tehsil or the Tehsil where
the subject matter of dispute/unit is
situated. Held - Under Section 35(2) of
the Code, a person aggrieved by an order
of the Tehsildar may prefer an appeal to
the Sub-Divisional Officer. The SubDivisional Officer of the Tehsil where the
holding (unit) is situated has jurisdiction
to correct the judgment of the Tehsildar.