# Smt. Kirti v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 680
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-28
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 20183 of 2013
- **Bench:** Gajendra Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kirti-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50977
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Law
-

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 -Section 482- The Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3/4 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860- Sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506, 406 -The applicants sought to quash the
proceedings in Case No. 1643 of 2012 under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act -
Held, the proceedings were quashed as the
allegations were omnibus, vague, and lacked
specific evidence, indicating an abuse of process
with ulterior motives. (Paras 3, 14, 16, 23)

B. Section 498-A IPC - Misuse of Provisions -
The FIR alleged cruelty and dowry demands
against the applicants, including the husband
and his sister - Held, general and omnibus
allegations without specific instances of cruelty
or dowry demands, as deprecated in Kahkashan
Kausar and Varala Bharath Kumar, do not justify
prosecution and warrant quashing to prevent
misuse of law. (Paras 15, 16, 17)

C. Abuse of Process and Ulterior Motive -
The opposite party no. 2 filed the FIR after
marital disputes and a divorce petition in the
USA, with a delay in reporting - Held, the FIR
appeared to be a tool to harass and coerce the
applicants, falling under categories (1) and (5)
of St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal for quashing due to
lack of prima facie offence and inherent
improbability. (Paras 14, 18, 23)

D. Inherent Powers of High Court - The
court emphasized the cautious exercise of Code
of Criminal Procedure,1973 -Section 482powers
to prevent abuse of process and secure justice -
Held, the court must examine attending
circumstances beyond FIR averments to identify
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, as guided by
Salif @ Shalu and Neeharika Infrastructure.
(Paras 19, 20, 22)

E. Fraud and False Allegations - The
applicants argued the FIR was lodged with mala
fide intent and false allegations - Held,
proceedings based on fraud or unclean hands,
as per S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu and A.VS
Papayya Sastry, are null and void, justifying
quashing to prevent injustice. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 9)

Applications Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
becomes de facto complainant, thus, in
every complaint lodged by a company,
which is a separate juristic personality,
there is a complainant dejure and a
complainant de facto.

41. This application has been
pending since last 8 years and the trial
could not proceed, it is in the interest of
justice that the trial may be concluded
expeditiously in accordance with law,
preferably within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this order without granting any
unnecessary adjournments to either side.

42. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the instant application filed
by the directions of the company is devoid
of merit, and is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 680
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 20183 of 2013

Smt. Kirti ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Santosh Tripathi, Sri Manas Bhargava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi, Sri Devesh
Mishra, Sri Harsh Kumar Anand

Criminal
Law
-

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 -Section 482- The Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3/4 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860- Sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506, 406 -The applicants sought to quash the
proceedings in Case No. 1643 of 2012 under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act -
Held, the proceedings were quashed as the
allegations were omnibus, vague, and lacked
specific evidence, indicating an abuse of process
with ulterior motives. (Paras 3, 14, 16, 23)

B. Section 498-A IPC - Misuse of Provisions -
The FIR alleged cruelty and dowry demands
against the applicants, including the husband
and his sister - Held, general and omnibus
allegations without specific instances of cruelty
or dowry demands, as deprecated in Kahkashan
Kausar and Varala Bharath Kumar, do not justify
prosecution and warrant quashing to prevent
misuse of law. (Paras 15, 16, 17)

C. Abuse of Process and Ulterior Motive -
The opposite party no. 2 filed the FIR after
marital disputes and a divorce petition in the
USA, with a delay in reporting - Held, the FIR
appeared to be a tool to harass and coerce the
applicants, falling under categories (1) and (5)
of St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal for quashing due to
lack of prima facie offence and inherent
improbability. (Paras 14, 18, 23)

D. Inherent Powers of High Court - The
court emphasized the cautious exercise of Code
of Criminal Procedure,1973 -Section 482powers
to prevent abuse of process and secure justice -
Held, the court must examine attending
circumstances beyond FIR averments to identify
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, as guided by
Salif @ Shalu and Neeharika Infrastructure.
(Paras 19, 20, 22)

E. Fraud and False Allegations - The
applicants argued the FIR was lodged with mala
fide intent and false allegations - Held,
proceedings based on fraud or unclean hands,
as per S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu and A.VS
Papayya Sastry, are null and void, justifying
quashing to prevent injustice. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 9)

Applications Allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath,
1994 AIR 853
4 All. Smt. Kirti Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
681
2. A.VS Papayya Sastry Vs Government of A.P.,
Appeal (Civil) No. 5097 of 2004

3. R.P. Kapur Vs St. of Punj., AIR 1960 SC 866

4. St. of Karnataka Vs L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2
SCC 699

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

6. Varala Bharath Kumar Vs St. of Telangana,
(2017) 9 SCC 413

7. Kahkashan Kausar Vs St. of Bihar, 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 141

8. K. Subba Rao Vs St. of Telangana, (2018) 14
SCC 452

9. Salif @ Shalu Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Appeal
No. 2344 of 2023

10. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of
Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918

11. Preeti Gupta Vs St. of Jharkhand, (2010) 7
SCC 667

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

13. Mahmood Ali Vs St. of U.P., Criminal Appeal
No. 2341 of 2023

14. Prabhatbhai Aahir Vs St. of Gujarat, (2017)
9 SCC 641

15. Kapil Agarwal Vs Sanjay Sharma, (2021) 5
SCC 524

16. Sundar Babu Vs St. of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 3
SCR 326

17. Mukesh Bansal Vs St. of U.P., Cri. Revision
No. 1126 of 2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar, J.)

1. Since these applications arising out
of same case crime number, they have been
heard together and are being decided by a
common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants, learned counsel for the first
informant/opposite party no.2 and learned
AGA for the State-respondents.

3. The instant Application U/S 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed with a request to
quash the Case No.1643 of 2012 arising out
of Case Crime No. 2/2012, under Sections
498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. & 3/4
D.P. Act, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-
VIII, Ghaziabad.

4. The prosecution story in brief of
the instant case are as follows:-

Marriage of applicant (Dr. Kalind
Parashar) with the opposite party no.2 was
solemnized on 14.02.2019 at Destination
Resort,
Solan,
Himanchal
Pradesh
according to Hindu Rites and Rituals.
Thereafter, on 24.02.2019, the applicant
(Dr. Kalind Parashar) along with opposite
party no.2 left for USA, where they have
blessed with a son on 02.02.2010 in USA
and all were living there happily, but due to
some difference of opinion, the relationship
between applicant (Dr. Kalind Parashar)
and opposite party no.2 became strained,
thereafter, applicant (Dr. Kalind Parashar)
filed a complaint for divorce on 09.02.2012
before Oakland County, Circuit Court,
Family Division, State of Michigan. In the
said case, an ex-parte interim order
regarding custody and parenting time was
passed on 10.02.2012 by the concerned
Judge of Family Court directing the
applicant
(Dr.
Kalind
Parashar)
and
opposite party no.2 not to change the
domicile and residence of the minor child
from the State of Michigan without a
written order from the Court. Thereafter, on
23.03.2012, an Application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the opposite
party no.2, though, an FIR has been lodged
682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the opposite party no.2 against the
applicants and three other co-accused
persons
with
false
and
frivolous
allegations, which was registered as Case
Crime No.02 of 2012, under Sections
498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 IPC and
Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police StationMahila Thana, District-Ghaziabad. Prior
to filing of application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., the opposite party no.2
had made a complaint before S.S.P.,
Ghaziabad, in which the SHO was
directed to conduct an inquiry and submit
a report, thereafter, making a thorough
enquiry by SHO concerned, submitted the
report mentioning therein that there is no
truth in the complaint of opposite party
no.2 and no further legal action is
required in the complaint. Opposite party
no.2 had also moved an application
before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tees
Hazari Court, Delhi under the Protection
of Women From Domestic Violence Act,
2005,
which
is
still
pending
consideration.
On
26.04.2012,
the
American Court has issued warrant of
arrest of opposite party no.2 as she has
violated order of the Court in relation to
carrying away minor child, who is U.S.
citizen by virtue of his birth in U.S.A.
and carried him to India. On 26.05.2012,
I.O. without conducting a proper and fair
investigation, has submitted the chargesheet against the applicant and three other
co-accused persons under the aforesaid
sections. On 29.05.2012, in the divorce
petition filed by the applicant (Dr. Kalind
Parashar) against the opposite party no.2,
even the concerned Judge of Family
Court, State of Michigan has passed an
order dissolving the marriage between the
parties.

4. It has been contended by the
learned counsel for the applicants that the
malicious proceedings have been lodged by
opposite party no.2 against the entire
family members including the present
applicants, who are 'Nanand' and husband
of opposite party no.2. It is submitted by
the learned counsel for the applicants that
they are innocent and have been falsely
implicated in the present case due to
ulterior motive. Applicant (Dr. Kalind
Parashar) left for USA along with his wife
(opposite party no.2) as applicant (Dr.
Kalind Parashar) was residing in New York
(USA) and was working as a Post
Doctorate Fellowship in Nuclear Medicine
in Memorial Saloan Katering Hospital,
New York (USA). He further submitted
that father-in-law and mother-in-law of
opposite party no.2 have already been
granted bail by the court below and they
are facing criminal prosecution. Further
submission is that there is contradictions in
the F.I.R. version and statement of
witnesses. Further submission is that after
completing
the
investigation,
the
Investigating Officer has submitted charge
sheet in a perfunctory manner and the
concerned Magistrate has taken cognizance
in a mechanical way without application of
judicial mind. Further submission is that
only intension behind lodging of the
impugned F.I.R. of opposite party no.2 was
to blackmail the husband and his family
and to create undue pressure upon them, as
such, the present criminal proceedings
against the applicants is nothing but an
abuse of process of law, which is liable to
be quashed.

5. In this regard, reliance is placed by
the learned counsel for the applicants upon
the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court
passed in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs.
Jagannath; 1994 AIR 853, 1994 (1) 1,
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as
under:-
4 All. Smt. Kirti Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
683

"The principle of "finality of
litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent
of such an absurdity that it becomes an
engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest
litigants. The courts of law are meant for
imparting justice between the parties. One
who comes to the court, must come with
clean hands. We are constrained to say that
more often than not, process of the court is
being
abused.
Property-grabbers,
taxevaders,
bank-loandodgers
and
other
unscrupulous persons from all walks of life
find the court-process a convenient lever to
retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We
have no hesitation to say that a person,
who's case is based on falsehood, has no
right to approach the court. He can be
summarily thrown out at any stage of the
litigation."

6. Further reliance is placed on the
judgement of the Apex Court passed in
A.V. Papayya Sastry & others vs.
Governmnet of A.P. & Others Appeal
(Civil) No. 5097 of 2004 , wherein Hon'ble
Apex Court has held as under:-

"It is thus settled proposition of
law that a judgment, decree or order
obtained by playing fraud on the Court,
Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and nonest in the eye of law. Even the Chief Justice
Edward Coke proclaimed "Fraud avoids
all
judicial
acts,
ecclesiastical
or
temporal".

7. Therefore, it is settled principle of
law that, decree or order obtained by fraud
by the first Court or by the final court has
to be treated as a nullity by every Court,
superior or inferior. It can be challenged in
any Court at any time, in appeal, revision,
writ or even in collateral proceedings. Lord
Denning had observed that in the leading
case of Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley,
(1956) 1 All ER 341 : (1956) 1 QB 702
:(1956) 2 WLR 502, that "No judgment of
a court, no order of a Minister, can be
allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by
fraud."

8. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the applicant has
further relied upon the judgments of Apex
Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State
of Punjab, A.I.R.; 1960 S.C. 866, State of
Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors.;
(1977) 2 SCC 699 and State of Haryana
and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors; 1992
SCC (Cr.) 426 and submits that whole
proceedings have been re-initiated with
ulterior and oblique motive to harass the
applicants and to tarnish their image in the
society and use the process of Court to
permeate injustice.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants
further submits that as Opposite Party No.2
has lodged the First Information Report
with unclean hands and has made material
concealment, in order to mislead the police
as well as the learned trial court, therefore,
the cognizance order being obtained
through fraud renders the same untenable
in the eyes of law. On the cumulative
strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is
submitted by learned counsel for the
applicants that the proceedings of the
above-mentioned criminal case against the
applicants in nothing but an abuse of
process of law, which are liable to be
quashed.

10. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the opposite party No.2 has
opposed the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the applicants and
submitted that due to non-fulfillment of
additional
dowry
demand,
the
victim/Opposite party number 2 was
684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
harassed and tortured by the applicants and
his family members. Learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2 has further
submitted that at the stage of taking
cognizance by the Magistrate as per the
provisions contained in Section 190(1)(b)
of Cr.P.C., the concerned Magistrate has to
see as to whether prima facie case is being
made out or not against the applicants and,
as such, the concerned Magistrate has
rightly taken the cognizance on the basis of
the chargesheet dated 26.05.2012 filed by
the Investigating Officer including the
statements of the witnesses and documents
collected during the investigation, as such,
this Court may not exercise its inherent
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the
present case, and, hence, the present
application is liable to be rejected.

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the
State has opposed the aforesaid contentions
made by the learned counsel for the
applicants and submits that applicants were
involved in committing the aforesaid
offence as has been alleged in the
impugned FIR and chargesheet were also
submitted by the Investigating Officer
against them. In case, applicants have any
grievance, they may raise their grievances
at appropriate forum, as such, there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned
cognizance order passed by the learned
court below and the same cannot be
quashed at this stage.

12. In response to the notice issued to
the respondents, a counter affidavit on
behalf of opposite party no.2 Reeta Kapoor
(mother of opposite party no.2) wife of
Bhavnesh Dutt Kapoor, aged about 67
years have been filed mentioning therein
that applicants and their family members
always causes cruelty with the opposite
party no.2 and several times tortured
mentally and physically, which is evident
from the doctor's report. It has also been
mentioned that after the birth of the baby
boy, mother-in-law and husband did not
allow the opposite party no.2 to breastfeed
the child. Upon the protest by the opposite
party no.2, her husband and his mother
tried to choke her throat by inserting
almonds in her mouth, one of the attending
medical personnal at hospital heard the
noise and came running to attend her, as
such, due to repeated acts of cruelty the
opposite party no.2 reported to the
domestic assaults in Planned Parenthood.

13. In reply to the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of opposite party no.2,
rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf
of the applicant (Smt. Kirti), by Kailash
Prashar (father of the applicant) son of
Kishori Lal Parashar, Aged 69 years,
wherein he has denied all the allegations
made in the counter affidavit as well as in
the impugned FIR and mentioned that only
with a view to harass the applicants and his
family
members,
impugned
criminal
proceedings have been lauched by the
opposite party no.2.

14. Having heard the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the rival
parties and perusal of the records as well as
impugned FIR, it is evident that Opposite
party no.2 was married with applicant (Dr.
Kalind Parashar) on 10.02.2019 and she
remained with her-in-laws in India for a
period of ten days and left for USA on
24.02.2019 and after remaining there,
delivered a baby boy out of the wedlock.
Some differences arose between the parties
as both are mature, educated and well
qualified. Proceedings for divorce were
undertaking in the Family Court in USA
and certain orders were passed by the
Family Court regarding the parenting and
4 All. Smt. Kirti Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
685
non-shifting of domicile/residence of the
child who is the citizen of USA, but she
obtained duplicate passport left for India
and herein Ghaziabad lodged FIR against
her husband and entire family members.
There is no plausible explanation of the
delay in lodging the FIR. It appears that
simply omnibus and vague allegations of
cruelty are made against the husband and
his family members only in order to harass
and coerce them.

15. The Court has occasion to go
through the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
court in the case of Varala Bharath
Kumar vs. State of Telangana reported
in (2017)9 SCC 413. Relevant paragraph
of the aforesaid order reads as follows:-

"8. We are conscious of the fact
that, Section 498A was added to the Code
with a view to punish the husband or any of
his relatives, who harass or torture the wife
to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy
unlawful demands of dowry. Keeping the
afore-mentioned object in mind, we have
dealt with the matter. We do not find any
allegation of subjecting the complainant to
cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A
of IPC. The records at hand could not
disclose any willful conduct which is of
such a nature as is likely to drive the
complainant to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the
complainant. So also, there is nothing on
record to show that there was a demand of
dowry by the appellants or any of their
relatives, either prior to the marriage,
during the marriage or after the marriage.
The record also does not disclose anywhere
that the husband of the complainant acted,
with a view to coerce her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand
of any property or valuable security."

16 . Further in the present case, it is
also seen that only omnibus and general
allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry
have been made, against the husband and
his family members. Further it is seen that
only general and omnibus allegation of
demand of dowry has been made in the
First Information Report which is in the
teeth of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of Bihar
(2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 whereby such
practice by the Hon'ble Apex Court has
been deprecated and it has been held that
the accused cannot be prosecuted on the
basis
of
such
allegations.
Relevant
paragraph of the aforesaid order reads as
follows:-

"18.
The
above-mentioned
decisions clearly demonstrate that this
court has at numerous instances expressed
concern over the misuse of section 498A
IPC and the increased tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in
matrimonial disputes, without analysing the
long term ramifications of a trial on the
complainant as well as the accused. It is
further manifest from the said judgments
that false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations made in the course of
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked
would result in misuse of the process of
law. Therefore, this court by way of its
judgments has warned the courts from
proceeding against the relatives and inlaws of the husband when no prima facie
case is made out against them."

17. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Mukesh Bansal vs. State of
U.P. & Anr (Cri. Revision No. 1126 of
2022) has given its opinion on the growing
tendency of misusing the provisions of
Section 498A IPC has held as under:-
686 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"Now, coming to the precise
question involved in the present case has to
level the omnibus allegations of dowry
related harassment of all the family
members connected with the husband in
recent judgment of Hon'ble the Apex
Court in the case of K. Subba Rao Vs.
State of Telangana reported in 2018 (14)
SCC 452 , it was observed by Hon'ble the
Apex Court that the Court should be
extremely
careful
and
vigilant
in
proceeding against the distant relative of
the husband in the crimes pertaining to
the dispute even in dowry deaths. All the
relatives of the husband should not be
roped in on the basis of omnibus
allegations unless Specific Instances of
the involvement in the crime as alleged
and surfaced during investigation with
materials certainty. The sweeping and
general allegations are very frequent
now-a-days and if such people are put to
trial on such a casual and omnibus
allegations, it would bound to lead the
disastrous
result
and
unwarranted
hardships to those persons."

18. The powers conferred by section
482 CrPc was widely discussed in various
cases as in the Case of State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraph no.102 has held as follows:

"102. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or
the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently
channelised
and
inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in
the
first
information
report
or
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 a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the
first
information
report
and
other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.

(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
4 All. Smt. Kirti Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
687
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the Act concerned (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned
Act,
providing
efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."

19. Recently In the case of Salif @
Shalu @ Salim Vs. State of U.P. and
others in Criminal Appeal No.2344 of
2023 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal)
No. 3152 of 2023) vide order dated
08.08.23 Hon'ble Apex Court has held as
under:-

"26. At this stage, we would like
to observe something important. Whenever
an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure
(CrPC)
or
extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal
proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground
that
such
proceedings
are
manifestly
frivolous
or
vexatious
or
instituted with the ulterior motive for
wreaking
vengeance,
then
in
such
circumstances the Court owes a duty to
look into the FIR with care and a little
more closely. We say so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is
very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure
that
the
averments
made
in
the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose
the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be
just enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint
alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute
the
alleged
offence
are
disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to
look
into
many
other
attending
circumstances emerging from the record
of the case over and above the averments
and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection try to read in between the
lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution
need not restrict itself only to the stage of
a case but is empowered to take into
account
the
overall
circumstances
leading to the initiation/registration of
the case as well as the materials collected
in the course of investigation"

20. In case of M/s Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others AIR (2021)
SC 1918, the Hon'ble Apex Court defined
the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and
Article 226 of Constitution of India and
observed that if a case falls under the
parameters of R.P. Kapur case (supra)
and Bhajan Lal case (supra) then this
Court is having jurisdiction to quash the
proceedings by invoking its jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. In Preeti Gupta and another vs.
State of Jharkhand and another [(2010)
7 SCC 667], the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held as under:-

"The tendency to implicate the
husband and all his immediate relations is
also not uncommon in complaints filed
under Section 498A IPC. It was observed
that the Courts have to be extremely
careful and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic
realities into consideration while dealing
with matrimonial cases, as allegations of
harassment by husband's close relations,
who were living in different cities and
never visited or rarely visited the place
where the complainant resided, would
add an entirely different complexion and
such allegations would have to be
scrutinised
with
great
care
and
circumspection."

22. In Neelu Chopra and another
vs. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184], the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

"The mere mention of statutory
provisions and the language thereof, for
lodging a complaint, is not the 'be all and
end all' of the matter, as what is required
to be brought to the notice of the Court is
the
12
particulars
of
the
offence
committed by each and every accused and
the role played by each and every
accused in the commission of that
offence. These observations were made in
the context of a matrimonial dispute
involving Section 498A IPC."

23. In Mahmood Ali and others vs.
State of U.P. and others (Criminal
Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided on
08.08.2023), the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held as under:-

"On
the
legal
principles
applicable apropos Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Therein, it was observed that when an
accused comes before the High Court,
invoking either the inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal
proceedings quashed, essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly
frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the
ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then
in such circumstances, the High Court owes a
duty to look into the FIR with care and a little
more closely. It was further observed that it
will not be enough for the Court to look into
the averments made in the FIR/complaint
alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether
the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court
owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of
the case over and above the averments and, if
need be, with due care and circumspection, to
try and read between the lines".

24. In case of Prabhatbhai Aahir alias
Parbatbai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and
others Vs. State of Gujarat and another
(2017) 9 SCC 641, a three three Judges
Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has observed
that Section 482 Cr.P.C. is pre-faced with an
overriding provision and this Court being a
superior Court has the inherent power to
make such order as necessary;

"(i) to prevent an abuse of the
process of any Court; or

(ii) otherwise to secure the ends
of justice."

22. In case of Kapil Agarwal and
others Vs. Sanjay Sharma and others
4 All. Smt. Kirti Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
689
(2021) 5 SCC 524 also Hon'ble Apex Court
has held as follows:

"As observed and held by this
Court in catena of decisions, inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
and/or
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution is designed to achieve salutary
purpose that criminal proceedings ought
not to be permitted to degenerate into
weapon of harassment. When the Court is
satisfied that criminal proceedings amount
to an abuse of process of law or that it
amounts
to
bringing
pressure
upon
accused, in exercise of inherent powers,
such proceedings can be quashed."

22. Finally, in a similar case, a Bench
of Three Judges of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of (Sundar Babu and another
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu)j; (2009) 3
S.C.R. 326, has observed as under:-

HELD: 1.1. Though the scope for
interference while exercising jurisdiction
under Sec.482 CrPC is limited, but it can
be made in cases as spelt out in the case of
Bhajan Lal. The illustrative examples laid
down. therein are as follows: 1) Where the
allegations made in the first information
report or 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 a case against the
accused; 2) Where the allegations in the
first
information
report
and
other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under
Sec.156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Sec.155(2) of the Code; 3) Where the
uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused; 4) Where, the
allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an
order of a Magistrate as contemplated
under Sec. 155 (2) of the Code; 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; 6)
Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution
and
continuance
of
the
proceedings and/or where there is an
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned
Act,
providing
efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party; 7) where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge. [Para 6] [332-8-H; 333A-C].

1.2. Section 482 CrPC does not
confer any new power on the High Court. It
only saves the inherent power which the
Court possessed before the enactment of
the Code. It envisages three circumstances
under which the inherent jurisdiction may
be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an
order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse
of the process of court, and (iii) to
otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is
neither possible nor desirable to lay down
any inflexible rule which would govern the
exercise
of
inherent
jurisdiction.
No
690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
legislative
enactment
dealing
with
procedure can provide for all cases that
may possibly arise. Courts, therefere, have
inherent
powers
apart
from
express
provisions of law which are necessary for
proper discharge of functions and duties
imposed upon them by law. That is the
doctrine which finds expression in the
section which merely recognizes and
preserves inherent powers of the High
Courts. All courts, whether civil or
criminal possess, in the absence of any
express provision, as inherent in their
constitution, all such powers as are
necessary to do the right and to undo a
wrong in course of administration of justice
on the principle "quando lex aliquid a/icui
concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo
res ipsae esse non potest" (when the law
gives a person anything it gives him that
without which it cannot exist). [Para 9]
[333-E-H; 334-A-B].

1.3. While exercising powers
under section 482, the court does not
function as a court of appeal or revision.
Inherent jurisdiction under the section
though wide has to be exercised sparingly,
carefully and with caution and only when
such exercise is justified by the tests
specifically laid down in the section itself.
It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do
real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone courts exist.
Authority
of
the
court
exists
for
advancement of justice and if any attempt is
made to abuse that authority so as to
produce injustice, the court has power to
prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of
process of the court to allow any action
which would result in injustice and prevent
promotion of justice. In exercise of the
powers court would be justified to quash
any
proceeding
if
it
finds
that
initiation/continuance of it amounts to
abuse of the process of court or quashing
of these proceedings would otherwise serve
the ends of justice. [Para 9) [334-8-E].

1.4. The powers possessed by the
High Court under Sec.482 of the Code are
very wide and the very plenitude of the
power requires great caution in its
exercise. Court must be careful to see that
its decision in exercise of this power is
based on sound principles. The inherent
power should not be exercised to stifle a
legitimate prosecution. The High Court
being the highest court of a State should
normally refrain from giving a prima facie
decision in a case where the entire facts
are incomplete and hazy, more so when the
evidence has not been collected and
produced before the Court and the issues
involved, whether factual or legal, are of
magnitude and cannot be seen in their true
perspective without sufficient material. Of
course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid
down in regard to cases in which the High
Court will exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at
any stage. [Para 1OJ [334-E-H; 335-A].

1.5. In the present case, even a
cursory perusal of the complaint shows that
the case at hand falls within the category
(7)
of
the
illustrative
parameters
highlighted in Bhajan Lal's case. The
proceedings in Criminal Petition pending
before
the
Judicial
Magistrate
are
consequently quashed. [Paras 7 and 10)
[333-D].

23. For all the reasons recorded above
and considering the facts and circumstances
of the case as well as the case-laws cited
above and the case on hand falls squarely
in categories (1) and (5) set out in Bhajan
Lal (supra), the entire criminal proceedings
against the applicants namely Smt. Kirti
4 All. Ved Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
691
and Dr. Kalind Parashar pending in the
court of A.C.J.M.-VIII, Ghaziabad vide
Case No.1643 of 2012 arising out of Case
Crime No. 2/2012, under Sections 498-A,
323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act
are, hereby, quashed.

24. Accordingly, the Applications
are allowed.

25. Let a copy of this order be sent
to the Court concerned forthwith.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 691
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 21858 of 2019

Ved Prakash ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Jitendra Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Nawal Kishor Mishra, Sri Upendra
Vikram Singh

Criminal Law
- Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 -Section 482- Quashing
of Proceedings Denied - The applicant sought
to
quash
the
summoning
order
dated
31.05.2014 under Section 465 IPC and related
proceedings, citing lack of prior sanction
under
Section
197
CrPC
-
Held,
the
proceedings could not be quashed as the
issue of whether the alleged act of producing
a forged disconnection slip was part of the
applicant's official duty requires trial evidence.
(Paras 2, 15, 16, 18)
B. Section 197 CrPC - Sanction Requirement
for Public Servant - The applicant, a retired
Executive Engineer, argued that prior sanction
was necessary as the alleged forgery occurred
during official duties - Held, protection under
Section 197 applies only to acts reasonably
connected to official duties, and fabricating
documents is not part of such duties, as per
Shambhoo Nath Mishra and Shadakshari. (Paras
8, 9, 10, 15)

C. Forgery Not Part of Official Duty - The
allegation
involved
producing
a
forged
disconnection slip dated 03.11.2008 - Held,
fabricating records, as per St. of Orissa Vs
Ganesh Chandra Jew and Punj. St. Warehousing
Corporation, is not an act in discharge of official
duty, and the issue requires trial adjudication.
(Paras 8, 12, 16)

D. Trial Required for Disputed Facts - The
applicant's claim that the act was part of official
duty was contested, and the trial court deferred
the sanction issue to the evidence stage - Held,
disputes regarding the nature of the act (official or
otherwise) must be resolved through trial, not
under Section 482 CrPC. (Paras 7, 11, 15, 16)

E. Expeditious Trial Directed - Noting the
case's pendency since 2014, the court directed
the trial court to conclude the proceedings in
Complaint Case No. 356 of 2014 within one year
- Held, prolonged delays necessitate expeditious
disposal to ensure justice. (Para 17)

Application Rejected.

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Orissa Vs Ganesh Chandra Jew, (2004)
8 SCC 40

2. Shambhoo Nath Mishra Vs St. of U.P., (1997)
5 SCC 326

3. Shadakshari Vs St. of Karnataka, Criminal
Appeal No. 256 of 2024

4. Punj. St. Warehousing Corporation Vs
Bhushan Chander, (2016) 13 SCC 44

5. Ayush Kumar Vs St. of U.P., Application U/S
482 No. 17421 of 2011