# Shani @ Sani Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 365
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 3246 of 2019
- **Bench:** Mohd. Aslam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shani-sani-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49028
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 323,
504, 506 - 3⁄4 D.P. Act,1961 -Quashing of
entire
criminal
proceedings-accused
applicants were demanding dowry of Rs. 2
lac for construction of house and on
refusal they assaulted her- the victim
alleged in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
that the husband came house after
consuming liquor abused her and torn her
private part-statement made u/s 164
Cr.P.C, she corroborated the version of
161
Cr.P.C.-medical
evidence
clearly
indicates that the victim sustained injury
in her private part and she was admitted
to hospital for treatment-the order of
cognizance was passed on the order-sheet
and not on the printed proforma-At this
stage, Court cannot marshal the evidence
and adjudicate the reliability of evidence
rather it as to only see whether the prima
facie case of cognizable offence is made
out or not-Hence, no illegality in the
impugned order.(Para 1 to 12)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

9 All. Shani @ Sani Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
365
by
competent
court
then
criminal
proceedings should not be permitted to
continue.

30. In case at hand, the question
whether Will dated 30.11.2000 is forged
could only be ascertained through evidence
and documents by a civil court of
competent jurisdiction but opposite party
no.2 did not challenge the Will before any
civil court, therefore, impugned complaint
can be nipped in the bud while exercising
the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

31. As, the present dispute is in
respect of registered Will deed of deceased
and registered Will was never challenged
by opposite party no.2 in any competent
civil court and there is no evidence on
record, which can even indicate that the
Will in question dated 30.11.2000 was
forged one, therefore, in my considered
view, the criminal proceedings instituted by
the opposite party no.2 is nothing but an
abuse of the process of law and it has been
used by him only as a weapon of
oppression against the applicants.

32. Therefore, from the discussion
made above, I find merit in the case and
accordingly the proceedings of Complaint
Case No. 2439 of 2012 dated 05.07.2011
under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506, 120B
IPC pending in the court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad as
well as summoning order dated 19.09.2012
and order dated 03.11.2015 passed by
revisional court in Criminal Revision No.
308 of 2012, Police Station Maudarwaza,
District Farrukhabad are hereby quashed.

33. The instant application stands
allowed.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 365
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MOHD. ASLAM, J.

Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 3246 of
2019

Shani @ Sani Kumar & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Jai Prakash Prasad, Vaishali Sahu

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Rajiv Tiwari, Sri S.P.S. Chauhan,
Sri Sukhendra Singh

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 323,
504, 506 - 3⁄4 D.P. Act,1961 -Quashing of
entire
criminal
proceedings-accused
applicants were demanding dowry of Rs. 2
lac for construction of house and on
refusal they assaulted her- the victim
alleged in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
that the husband came house after
consuming liquor abused her and torn her
private part-statement made u/s 164
Cr.P.C, she corroborated the version of
161
Cr.P.C.-medical
evidence
clearly
indicates that the victim sustained injury
in her private part and she was admitted
to hospital for treatment-the order of
cognizance was passed on the order-sheet
and not on the printed proforma-At this
stage, Court cannot marshal the evidence
and adjudicate the reliability of evidence
rather it as to only see whether the prima
facie case of cognizable offence is made
out or not-Hence, no illegality in the
impugned order.(Para 1 to 12)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Geeta Mehrotra & anr.. Vs St. of U.P. &anr.
(2013) AIR SC 181

2. Mirza lqbal @ Golu & anr.. Vs St. of U.P.
(2021) 0 Supreme SC 795

3. Pankaj jaiswal Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2021) 0
Supreme (All) 491

4. St. of Har. & ors. Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors.
(1992) AIR 604 , 1990 SCR Supl. 3 259 M/s
Neeharika infra. Pvt. Ltd. Vs .St. of Mah. & ors.
(2020) SCC Online SC 850

5. R.P. Kapur Vs St. of Punj.(1960) AIR SC 866

6. Ramaesh Vs St. of T.N. (2005) SCC (Crl.) 735
at 738,

7. KahkashanKausar @ Sonam Vs St. of Bih.
(2022) 0 Supreme SC 117

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam, J.)

1. Heard Sri Jai Prakash Prasad,
learned counsel for applicants, Sri
Sukhendra Singh, learner counsel for
opposite party no.2 as well as Sri S.N.
Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing on
behalf of State of U.P. and and perused
the record.

2. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved
seeking quashing of entire criminal
proceedings of Case No.1044 of 2018
(State vs. Shani and Others), arising out
of Case Crime No. 02 of 2018, under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C
and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana,
District- Aligarh as well as charge-sheet
no. 22 of 2018 dated 18.06.2018 and
cognizance order dated 04.08.2018,
pending
in
the
court
of
learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.8, Aligarh.

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of
this application are that opposite party no.2,
Preeti daughter of Ranveer Singh lodged
the first information report against the
applicants on 09.01.2018 at 13:13 hrs. on
the basis of written complaint alleging
therein that her marriage with applicant,
Shani took place on 05.02.2017 according
to Hindu rites and rituals. In the marriage,
her father had spent about a sum of Rs.11
lakhs. Her husband was working in a
private company and was getting about
Rs.20,000/- as salary. After sometime of
marriage, her husband started demanding
Rs.2 lakhs for construction of his house
which was refused by her on account of
which her husband started assaulting and
maltreating her on persuasion of her inlaws. On 25.04.2017, her husband came
home in drunken condition and started
abusing her vulgarly and forcibly took off
her shalwar and lacerated her vagina
mercilessly, then she cried in pain and
hearing the cry the applicant nos. 2 to 5
started laughing saying that she deserves it.
Due to excess bleeding she became
unconscious and on 26.04.2017 she was
admitted in Safdarjung Hospital, New
Delhi due to her bad condition. Her
husband had also threatened her. On
15.10.2017 her husband left her at Aligarh.
When she came at her parental house, she
told the entire incident to her parents and
close relatives who tried to convince her
husband and other in-laws but resulted in
vain. The applicant no.1 had admitted the
victim/complainant in Safdarjung Hospital,
Delhi for treatment on 26.04.2017 after
causing injury in her private part by both
hands (the photocopy of the treatment
prescription dated 26.04.2017 has been
annexed as Annexure No.2 to the affidavit).
The relevant portion of the treatment
prescription is quoted as follows:-
9 All. Shani @ Sani Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
367

Preeti wife of Sani resident of Nai
Basti N.D.

26/04/2017 8.01A.M.

Nullipara female with post coital
tear

L/E

0.5x0.5cm tear with continuous
bleeding.

On Admission-----P/A/Soft

Procedure - repair in I/V Sedition

Perop-Haemostatic Suture

Advised-Amlox 500mg O-OO 5 Days

-Tab Brufen sos

-T. Fs/Bl/Oc/Ps 1od

-T. Chipmoral Fort

O-O-O 4hours Tdsx14 Days

-Perineal Care O-O-O

COD.
Satisfactory
Vital
Stable

4. Investigating Officer recorded the
statement of opposite party no. 2 under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. (typed copy of the
statement has been annexed as annexure
no.3), wherein she stated that the members
of her in-laws' family were not satisfied
with the dowry given in the marriage and
were demanding Rs. 2 lakh as additional
dowry and on account of non-fullfilment of
demand of additional dowry, her husband
(applicant no.1), mother-in-law (applicant
no.2), father-in-law (applicant no.3), sisterin-law, unmarried Nanad (applicant no.4)
and brother-in-law, Devar (applicant no.5)
started beating and maltreating her. The
opposite
party
no.2
was
medically
examined on 15.02.2018 at Pt. Deen Dayal
Upadhyay Hospital, Aligarh. On internal
examination, no fresh injury was seen. On
external examination no fresh injury of
recent use of force was found. Two smear
slides
were
prepared
and
sent
for
pathological examination in which no
spermatozoa was seen and supplementary
injury report was prepared in which doctor
opined that on the basis of pathological,
medical and physical examination, there
was no sign of recent use of force,
however, final opinion was reserved
depending on FSL report. The above
reports were copied by investigating officer
in the case diary (the typed and photocopy
of the case diary is annexed as annexure
no.4 to the affidavit). Investigating officer
also recorded statement of Ranveer Singh,
father of the informant, Smt. Pushpa Devi,
mother of the informant, the copy of the
statements is annexed as annexure no.6.
The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of
the informant/victim was recorded by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIII,
Aligarh, copy of which has been annexed
as annexure no.7 to the affidavit. In the
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she
stated that her marriage with Shani,
resident of New Delhi was solemnized on
05.02.2017. After marriage, she was living
happily at her matrimonial home, but on
25.04.2017
her
husband
in
drunken
condition
lacerated
her
private
part
mercilessly,
thereafter,
her
husband,
mother-in-law, Nanad and Devar got her
admitted in Safdarjung Hospital, New
Delhi on 26.04.2017. She further stated that
accused persons were not keeping her
properly and used to beat her on account of
demand of Rs. 2 lakhs as dowry. On
15.10.2017 her husband took her at Aligarh
and left her at the bus stand. Investigating
Officer also recorded the statement of Dr.
Vijaya Jutesi, Medical Officer, Safdarjung
Hospital, Delhi and Dr. Alveera Shah,
Medical Officer, Deen Dayal Upadhyay
Hospital, Aligarh, copies of the same have
been annexed as annexure nos. 8 & 9. After
investigation, it was found that offence
under Section 376 I.P.C. is not made out
and the charge-sheet was submitted against
the accused-applicants under Sections 498-
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the applicants that in this case
mother, father, brother and unmarried sister
of husband (applicant no.1) of opposite
party no.2 have been falsely implicated in
this case. The general allegations have been
levelled against the accused, therefore, no
case is made out against the applicants in
view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court in Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State
of UP & Anr., reported in AIR 2013
Supreme Court 181, Mirza Iqbal @ Golu
& Anr. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh,
2021 0 Supreme(SC)795, and the law laid
down by this Court in Pankaj Jaiswal vs.
State of U.P. & Another, 2021 0
Supreme(All) 491. It is further submitted
that according to prosecution version, the
cause of action arose from 05.02.2017 to
15.10.2017 at the residence of applicants,
i.e., House No. 63/331, Nai Basti, Village
Jamiya Nagar, South Delhi but opposite
party no.2 lodged the first information
report at Police Station- Mahila Thana,
District- Aligarh. According to Sections
177 and 178 Cr.P.C., every offence shall
ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a
Court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed and when it is uncertain in
which of several local areas an offence was
committed, or where an offence
is
committed partly in one local area and
partly in another, or where an offence is a
continuing one, and continues to be
committed in more local areas than one, or
where it consists of several acts done in
different local areas, it may be enquired
into or tried by a court having jurisdiction
over any of such local areas. In this case,
the offence is alleged to have been
committed in Delhi, therefore, the court at
Aligarh has no territorial jurisdiction to
take cognizance of the offence on the basis
of charge-sheet. It is further submitted that
according to prosecution case, applicant
no.1 assaulted the opposite party no.2 for
non-fulfilment of demand dowry of Rs. 2
lakhs on the goading of his family
members, but she did not get herself
medically examined by any doctor nor any
medico-legal injury report has been filed
which establishes that she was assaulted by
applicant no.1 on the direction of his family
members. Neither any demand of dowry
was made by the applicants nor she was
tortured in any manner. In fact, the opposite
party no.2 had gone to her parental house
on her own free will and volition and was
continuously residing with her parents
since 11.10.2017, thereafter, she has lodged
the first information report on the basis of
false, fabricated and concocted story with
ulterior motive to harass the applicant no.1
(husband) and his family members to
pressurise her husband to live with her
separately on rental house. It is further
submitted
that
opposite
party
no.2
sustained injury in her private part during
coitus and the treating doctor in her
statement has stated that the injury in
question on the private part of opposite
party no.2 cannot be caused by hand as
alleged by the prosecution. The applicant
no.1 is ready to keep opposite party no.2
and he has filed a suit for restitution of
conjugal rights in the court of Principle
Judge Family Court (South-East), Saket
Court, New Delhi. It is further submitted
that applicant no.3 is a tailor and running a
shop on rent of Rs.5000/- per month
village of Okhla Jamiya Nagar, New Delhi
and applicant no.1 is helping him in
tailoring work. The aforesaid criminal
proceedings
have
been
initiated
by
opposing party no.2 against the applicants
in abuse of process of law and the same is
liable to be set-aside.
9 All. Shani @ Sani Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
369

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well
as learned counsel for opposite party no.2
have submitted that perusal of first
information
report,
statements
under
Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of opposite
party no.2, statements under Section 161
Cr.P.C. of her parents, namely, Ranveer
Singh, Smt. Pushpa Devi and the material
available on record, prima facie, discloses
the commission of cognizable offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, therefore, in view of the
law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in
State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan
Lal & Ors., 1992 AIR 604, 1990 SCR
Supl.
(3)
259
and
M/s
Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors, 2020 SCC Online SC
850, the application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. It is further
submitted that so far as the genuineness of
the prosecution case is concerned, it cannot
be adjudicated in the proceedings under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and it can only be
adjudicated by trial court after recording
the evidence. In exercise of power
conferred under jurisdiction 482 Cr.P.C.,
the High Court cannot appreciate the pros
and cons of the evidence in view of law
laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in R.P.
Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960
(SC) 866. It is further submitted that
although the occurrence has taken place at
New Delhi but the part of act of cruelty was
taken place at Aligarh, because due to
injury in her private parts, her private part
was not in good condition as it was earlier
on account of which applicant no.1 cut-off
his relation with her, and thereafter, on
15.10.2017 in continuance of cruelty her
husband left her at Aligarh bus stand and
threatened her that she is not suitable for
him and when she reached at her parental
house, she narrated the entire incidents to
her parents. The part of the cruelty
punishable under Section 498-A was
committed by the accused-applicants at
New Delhi and the part of the cruelty i.e.
"the act of threatening her that she is not
suitable for him" was committed at Aligarh,
therefore,
the
court
at
Aligarh
has
jurisdiction
to
take
cognizance
of
occurrence and police at Aligarh is
empowered to lodged first information
report and to investigate the matter. The
marriage of opposite party no.2 with the
applicant
no.1
has
taken
place
on
05.02.2017 at Damodar Guest House,
Aligarh and just after marriage she had
gone to her matrimonial house. It is also
submitted that the injury in vagina may be
sustained in the early weeks of coitus and it
will not happen after passage of about more
than two months. There was 0.5 cm x 0.5
cm tear in the vagina of opposite party no.2
and on 26.04.2017 she was admitted to
Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi at that time the
injury was found bleeding continuously.
From the perusal of treatment prescription
of Safdarjung Hospital, it transpires that the
doctor has repaired tears by stitching under
I/V
sedition
and
medicines
were
prescribed. Although, Dr. Vijaya Jutesi in
her statement has stated that the injury in
question
may
occur
during
sexual
intercourse and it could not be caused by
hand, but the victim in her statement stated
that the accused-applicant no.1 had torned
her vagina by hands. It is further submitted
that it can only be decided after recording
the evidence of doctor at the time of trial,
because at that stage the prosecution may
suggest the manner in which the alleged
injury was caused by applicant no.1. In the
first information report, opposite party no.2
has also alleged that her husband, motherin-law, father-in-law, unmarried Nanad and
Devar were taking all the household work
by her day and night and were not treating
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
her with honour. She has further stated that
the demand of dowry was made by the
accused-applicants to construct the house
and on account of its non-fulfillment her
husband and other in-laws were beating
and maltreating her. It is next submitted
that specific allegations have been levelled
against all the accused-applicants and the
facts and circumstances of this case is
different than that of the case relied on by
learned counsel for the applicants in Geeta
Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of UP & Anr.,
reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court 181,
Mirza Iqbal @ Golu & Anr. vs. The State
of
Uttar
Pradesh,
2021
0
Supreme(SC)795, and the law laid down
by this Court in Pankaj Jaiswal vs. State of
U.P. & Another, 2021 0 Supreme(All) 491,
and therefore, the above cited case law is
not applicable in the case in hand. The
instant application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits and is liable to
be dismissed.

7.

I
have
given
thoughtful
consideration to the contentions raised by
learned counsel of the parties as well as
learned A.G.A. for the State and gone
through the file.

8. The informant in the first
information report stated that her marriage
had taken place at Aligarh with applicant
no.1 Shani on 05.02.2017 and her father
had given dowry according to his capacity.
After marriage, she had gone to her
matrimonial house at Nai Basti Okhla,
Jamiya Nagar, New Delhi. She had further
alleged that her husband, mother-in-law,
father-in-law, Nanad and Devar were
taking all household work from her day and
night and were not giving her respect. After
sometimes of marriage her husband started
demanding Rs.2 lakhs for construction of
house and on refusal to meet out the
demand, her husband on persuasion of his
family members started assaulting and
maltreating her. She had further alleged
that her husband had torn her private part in
the night on 25.04.2017 at that time her
husband was drunken. On 26.04.2017, she
was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital, New
Delhi by her husband and in-laws in critical
condition, where she was threatened not to
tell anything to anyone otherwise they
would give poison to her, due to this reason
she kept mum. She further alleged that her
private part was not getting normal due to
which her husband refused to have a
relationship with her like husband and wife
and on 15.10.2017 her husband left her at
Aligarh bus stand saying that now she is
not suitable for him. Thereafter, her
relatives had tried to persuade the accused
persons, but it resulted in vain. In the
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she
stated that all accused-applicants were
demanding Rs. 2 lakhs as dowry for
construction of house and on refusal they
assaulted her and on 25.04.2017 her
husband came house after consuming
liquor and started abusing her in obscene
words and torn her private part ruthlessly
by his both hands, and thereafter, they got
her admitted in Safdarjung Hospital, New
Delhi on 26.04.2017. In the statement
under
Section
164
Cr.P.C.,
she
corroborated the version of her statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. From
the perusal of medical prescription, it is
very much clear that the victim/informant
sustained injury in her private part on
25.04.2017 and continued to bleed till the
time of admission in the hospital in the next
morning where the tear was repaired by
stitching
under
I/V
seditions,
and
thereafter, she was discharged from the
hospital. It has also been alleged that when
the victim sustained injury in her private
part, the family members of her in-laws
9 All. Shani @ Sani Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
371
were making fun of her saying that she
only deserves it.

 9. So far as the submission of learned
counsel
for
applicants
regarding
applicability of the law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra &
Anr. vs. State of UP & Anr. (supra) is
concerned, in that ruling it was held that in
the first information report allegation
against
Geeta
Mehrotra
and
Ramji
Mehrotra, who are unmarried sister elder
brother of husband of the complainant, was
found absent and mere casual reference to
their names in the first information report
was found insufficient to take cognizance
against unmarried sister and elder brother
of husband of the complainant. In the case
in hand, the victim/complainant had alleged
in her statements under 161 & 164 Cr.P.C.
that all the accused-applicants were not
treating her well and were demanding Rs. 2
lakhs as additional dowry and used to
harass and torture her and even after she
sustained injury in her private part, her
husband after treatment told her that now
she is not suitable for him and left her at
Aligarh bus stand. In above circumstances,
prima facie, it cannot be said that there was
no
active
involvement
of
accusedapplicants including father-in-law, motherin-law, Nanad and Dever in the present
case. It is also pertinent to mention that
when the victim/complainant sustained
injury in her private part, the accusedapplicants were making fun of her saying
that she deserves only it. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State
of UP & Anr. (supra) had relied on the law
laid down in Ramaesh vs State of Tamil
Nadu, reported in (2005) SCC (Crl.) 735 at
738, where the sister of husband of the
complainant, who was living at a different
place, was named in the first information
report. In that circumstances, Hon'ble Apex
Court held that sister of husband of the
complainant was roped in on the basis of
bald allegation which was not sufficient to
take cognizance against her and the
cognizance order against sister of husband
of the complainant, who was living at a
different place, was quashed. So far as the
applicability of the case law of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam vs The State Of Bihar 2022 0
Supreme (SC) 117 is concerned, in that
case it was held that if the allegations made
against the in-laws (appellants) are general
and omnibus allegations, they are liable to
be quashed and also held that in absence of
any specific role attributed to accused
persons, it would be unjust if appellants are
forced to go through tribulations of a trial,
i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot
manifest in a situation where the relatives
of the complainant's husband are forced to
undergo trial and a criminal trial leading to
an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe
scars upon the accused, and such an
exercise must therefore be discouraged. In
this case, specific allegations were made
against the accused persons that all
applicants were demanding Rs. 2 lakhs as
additional dowry for construction of joint
house;
they
were
treating
the
victim/complainant like a mad and were
taking all the household work by her day
and night; and were not respecting her and
harassing her and also persuading her
husband to beat her and even when she
sustained injury in her private part they
were making fun of her. In above
circumstances, the law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar
@ Sonam vs The State Of Bihar (supra) is
not applicable in this case because the facts
and circumstances of this case are different
and specific allegations were made against
all the accused-applicants. So far as the law
laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mirza
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Iqbal @ Golu & Anr. vs. The State of
Uttar Pradesh (supra) is concerned, the 1st
Appellant therein, was brother-in-law of
the deceased was working as a Cashier in
ICICI Bank, Khalilabad. On the date of
incident i.e. on 24.07.2018, he was on duty
and was residing at Khalilabad in view of
his employment in ICICI Bank and his
mother 2nd Appellant Shamima Bano alias
Sammi was also living with him at
Khalilabad. In that case, the occurrence had
taken place at Gorakhpur, in above
circumstances,
the
proceeding
against
brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the
complainant-respondent was quashed. The
facts and circumstances of this case are
different from that of aforesaid case,
therefore, the law laid down in Mirza Iqbal
@ Golu & Anr. vs. The State of Uttar
Pradesh (supra) is not applicable in this
case.

10. In this case, the order of
cognizance was passed on the order-sheet
and not on the printed proforma, therefore,
there is no illegality in passing the
impugned order.

11. So far as the submission of the
counsel of applicants regarding lodging of
false and concocted first information report
is concerned, it can be adjudicated after
recording the evidence by trial court. At the
stage of proceeding under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the Court is to see whether perusal
of uncontroverted evidence recorded by
Investigating Officer during investigation
discloses any cognizable offence or not. At
this stage, Court cannot marshal the
evidence and adjudicate on the reliability of
the evidence. The court has to only see
whether
the
prima
facie
case
of
commission of cognizable offence is made
out or not in the light of law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in "R.P. Kapur Vs.
State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 (SC) 866,
State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan
Lal & Ors., 1992 AIR 604, 1990 SCR Supl.
(3) 259 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors,
2020 SCC Online SC 850". In above
circumstances, the impugned order of
taking cognizance of offence on the basis
of charge-sheet, impugned charge-sheet
and the proceedings of lower court are not
liable to be quashed and the instant
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
moved with mala fide intention to delay the
proceedings of the lower court.

12. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 372
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 21647 of
2019

Yogesh Pandey ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, Sri Rama
Shankar Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Bablu Singh

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506 & 406 -3⁄4 D. P. Act, 1961Quashing
of
criminal
proceedingmatrimonial dispute-compromise-In the