# Smt. Reha Verma & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 635
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-06
- **Case number:** Application U/s 482 No. 10451 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-reha-verma-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52424
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law- The Code of Criminal
Procedure-1973-Sections -204- Applicants
are summoned for offence under Sections
323, 504, 506, 452 IPC-No offence of
causing hurt is made out, therefore,
offence of trespass is also not made out as
it is alleged that after trespass, applicants
have caused hurt to number of persons of
complainant
side-Basic
ingredients
of
Section 504 & 506 IPC that there must be
an 'alarm' as well as that nature of insult
must be of such extent that complainant
and his associates would be provoked to
breach peace are missing as well as
nature of insult or abusive language was
also not disclosed by any witnesses,
therefore, neither of said offences are
made out-impugned order was passed
only on basis of sweeping general and
omnibus allegations without any specific
role attributed to the accused, it would be
unjust if they are forced to go through the
tribulation of a trial-Result-Impugned
order set aside.(Para 8, 9 & 10) (E-15)
636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Smt. Reha Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
635
trial whether conviction could be made out
or
not.
Therefore,
even
considering
statements referred above, even without
looking into the medical report, nature of
injury is absolutely clear that it was a fire
arm injury, shot from a close range and
after operation pellets were recovered.

14.

In
these
circumstances,
statement of injured become very relevant
that it was aimed on his chest and therefore,
essential ingredients of Section 307 I.P.C.
are prima facie made out that has assailant
at least knowledge that under such
circumstances (i.e. when he aimed at chest
of injured, if he by that act caused death he
would be guilty of murder).

15. A half hearted argument is also
placed on record that allegation of firing
was only on two applicants, however,
learned counsel has missed that it was
specific case of complainant as well as
injured witness that all applicants have
formed an unlawful assembly and have
acted in furtherance of their common
object. At this stage, the Court could not
fracture
the
story,
which
has
been
supported by witnesses including two
doctors. The last argument is that it was a
counterblast case, as the applicants side has
lodged an FIR of an occurrence against
complainant side, which took place two
days prior to present occurrence. However,
this could not be a ground to reject a well
reasoned order passed by learned Trial
Court, who has meticulously examined the
material on record to assign an opinion that
there are sufficient ground to proceed.

16. Accordingly, all arguments
raised by learned counsel for applicants
have been dealt above and the Court is of
considered opinion that they have no
merit.
17. Accordingly, I do not find any
reason to interfere with the impugned
summoning order and therefore, present
application is rejected.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 635
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/s 482 No. 10451 of 2024

Smt. Reha Verma & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri M.S. Chauhan, Sri Shivkumari Chauhan

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Ms. Shaili Ganguly

Criminal Law- The Code of Criminal
Procedure-1973-Sections -204- Applicants
are summoned for offence under Sections
323, 504, 506, 452 IPC-No offence of
causing hurt is made out, therefore,
offence of trespass is also not made out as
it is alleged that after trespass, applicants
have caused hurt to number of persons of
complainant
side-Basic
ingredients
of
Section 504 & 506 IPC that there must be
an 'alarm' as well as that nature of insult
must be of such extent that complainant
and his associates would be provoked to
breach peace are missing as well as
nature of insult or abusive language was
also not disclosed by any witnesses,
therefore, neither of said offences are
made out-impugned order was passed
only on basis of sweeping general and
omnibus allegations without any specific
role attributed to the accused, it would be
unjust if they are forced to go through the
tribulation of a trial-Result-Impugned
order set aside.(Para 8, 9 & 10) (E-15)
636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:

1. Mohammad Wajid & anr.Vs St.of U.P. & ors.,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 951

2. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & ors.Vs St.of
Bihar & ors., (2022) 6 SCC 599

3. Achin Gupta Vs St.of Har. & anr., 2024 0
INSC 369

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

1. Heard Sri M.S. Chauhan, learned
counsel for applicants and Ms. Shaili
Ganguli, learned counsel for opposite
party-2.

2. Applicants (8 in numbers) are
family members whereas applicant no.1 is
wife of complainant.

3. Learned counsel for applicants
has extensively referred impugned order
passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. whereby
all applicants are summoned for offence
under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC as
well as statement of complainant under
Section 200 and of witnesses under Section
202 Cr.P.C. that impugned order was
passed only on basis of omnibus and
general allegations only for the purpose of
putting wife of complainant (applicant
no.1) and her close relatives under pressure
as earlier applicant no.1 has lodged an FIR
for
matrimonial
dispute
against
complainant and his close relatives as well
as other 3 cases also. For reference,
relevant part of impugned order dated
16.01.2024, statements under Section 200
and 202 Cr.P.C. are quoted below -:

"16.01.2024
सुना व अविोकन बकया। अविोकन से
दबर्शत है बक पररवादी पंकज कुमार का ियान अंतगशत
िारा 200 दं०प्र०सं० दजश बकया गया। पररवादी द्वारा
साक्षी पी०डब्िू०1 पूजा कठेररया, साक्षी पी०डब्िू०2
गोमती देवी बतवारी का ियान अंतगशत िारा 202
दं०प्र०सं० अंबकत कराया गया। पररवादी द्वारा अपने
ियान अंतगशत िारा 200 दं०प्र०सं० में बवपक्षीगण द्वारा
पररवादी के घर में घुसकर पररवादी के माता-बपता, िहन
व छोर्ी िह से मारपीर् करने, गािी गिौज करने व घर
में घुसकर 70,000/- िे जाने का कथन बकया गया
है। साक्षी पी०डब्िू०1 तथा साक्षी पी०डब्िू० 2 द्वारा
अपने ियान अंतगशत िारा 202 दं०प्र०सं० में पररवादी
द्वारा बकए गए कथनो की पुबष्ट की गयी है। पररवाद पत्र
के साथ दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य दाबखि बकए गए है। दौरान
जाूँच एकत्र बकए गए साक्ष्यों का पररर्ीिन करने के
पश्चात यह बनष्किश बनकिता है बक पररवादी द्वारा प्रस्तुत
साक्ष्यों से पररवाद पत्र में वबणशत घर्ना के ताबत्वक बिन्दु
प्रथम दृष्टया बवश्वसनीय प्रतीत होते है।
पत्राविी पर उपिब्ि समस्त साक्ष्यों के
आिोक में पररवाद कथानक में नौसबगशकता पररिबक्षत
होती है, बजसके आिार पर बवपक्षीगण श्रीमती रेहा
वमाश, राम औतार कठेररया, श्रीमती आर्ा देवी, देवेन्र
प्रताप कठेररया, वीरेन्र प्रताप कठेररया, बप्रयंका उफश
बदव्या, नीरज बसंह उफश गुड्डू व श्रीमती नेहा उफश सुमन
को िारा 323,504,506 व 452 िा०दं०सं० के
अन्तगशत अपराि काररत बकया जाना प्रतीत होता है।
अतः अबियुक्त उपरोक्त को ऊपर वबणशत िाराओं में
तिि बकए जाने का आिार पयाशप्त है।
ियान अंतगशत िारा 200 सी.आर.पी.सी.
नाम- पंकज कुमार, बपता राजेन्र कुमार,
उम्र 35 विश, पेर्ा- प्राइवेर् नौकरी, पता- नई िस्ती,
बिरबतयान, कानपुर नगर। पररवादी ने सर्पथ ियान
बदया की मेरा बववाह रेहा वमाश के साथ बद०
25.11.2008 को सम्पन्न हुआ। हमारे िीच बववाद
था। मेरी पत्नी ने मेरे व मेरे पररवारजनो के बवरूद्ध कुि
4 केस हरदोई कोर्श में दाबखि बकये है जो बनम्नबिबखत
है- िारा 125 सीआरपीसी के अंतगशत िूर् का
मुकदमा, घरेिू बहंसा 498ए आबद। बद० 27.11.
2020 को मै मेरा िाई व मेरी माता हरदोई बजिा
न्यायािय गये। उस बदन मुकदमा अंतगशत िारा-125
सी.आर.पी.सी. व Dowry Prohibition के
मुकदमें में तारीख िगवाई थी। कचहरी से िगिग 200
8 All. Smt. Reha Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
637
मीर्र की दूरी पर हम खडे थे व सुनवाई के िाद घर
वापस जा रहे थे तिी रेहा, राम औतार कठेररन आर्ा
देवी, बवरेन्र, प्रताप, देवेन्र प्रताप व कुछ अज्ञात व्यबक्त
हमारी ओर आये और आते ही गािी गिौच करने िगे।
िक्का मुक्की देने िगे कह रहे है। तेरे समय 5.15
पी.एम. िजे रेहा आर्ा देवी राम औतार कठेररया,
देवेन्र व वीरेन्र नीरज उफश गुड्डू, रेहा मेरे घर आये।
इसके अबतररक्त बदव्या िी आई मै आबफस में था। मेरे
घर में मेरी मां मुन्नी देवी, बपता राजेन्र कुमार, िदन
पूजा, घोयश िह पूजा घर में मौजूद थे। वे िात-चीत
िताकर घर में आये परंतु घर में आने िाद वे िडाई
झगडा करने िगे। रेहा मेरे घर से रू० 70,000/- िे
गई मेरे पररवारजनों के साथ मार पीर् करी गािी गिौज
करी मेरी िहन ने पुबिस को िुिाया तो पुबिस आई।
बफर पुबिस उनको िे गई। पुबिस ने कुछ पुछताछ करी
परंतु बफर उन्हे छोड बदया और कोई कायशवाही नहीं करी।
मैने बिठूर थाने में बर्नाख्त करी व डाक द्वारा पुबिस
अबिकारी को बर्कायत िेजी परंतु कोई कायशवाही नहीं
हुई। कुछ और नहीं करना।
ियान
अंतगशत
िारा
-202
सी.आर.पी.सी.
नाम- पूजा कठेररया सी/ओ राजेन्र कठेररया
बनवासी बवरबतयान मंहाना कानपुर नगर उम्र-26 विश,
पेर्ा पढती है, सर्पथ ियान करती ह ूँ बक घर्ना
21.01.21 र्ाम 5 िजे की है। मेरी िािी रेहा वमाश
ने बजिा हरदोई कचहरी में मेरे माता-बपता दोनो िाई व
मेरे बखिाफ पत्नी उत्पीडन दहेज प्रताडना का मुकदमा
चि रहा है। बद० 27.11.20 को मेरे माता बपता व
िाई के साथ मार बपर् व हाथा पाई की। उसकी सूचना
मैने हरदोई पुबिस में िी की थी बद० 21.01.21 को
समय िगिग सवा पाूँच िजे सिी अबियुक्तगण एक
राय होकर मेरे घर में घुस आये तथा मेरे माता बपता व
मुझे िद्दी- िद्दी गाबियां देते हुये मार-पीर् करने िगे। मै
अपने माता बपता को िचाने दौडी मेरे िाई की दो
साबियां बदव्या व नेहा ने मेरे साथ मार- बपर् की और
मेरी िािी रेहा वमाश सािी बदव्या मेरे िाई की सास
आर्ा देवी कमरे में घुस गयी मेरे छोर्े िाई की
बडबिवरी के बिए रखे 70 हजार रूपये िूर् बिये मेरे
िाई की सूचना बमिने पर वह घर आया। अबियुक्तगणों
ने मेरे िाई पंकज वमाश के साथ िी मार पीर् की। 112
नम्िर पर डायि बकया था। पुबिस आयी थी। मंिना
चौकी िे गयी था वहाूँ से उनको पुबिस ने छोड बदया
बद० 22.01.22 को बिठूर थाना को व एस.एच.ओ.
को प्रा० पत्र बदया था। बकन्तु कोई कायशवाही नही हुयी।
घर्ना को कई िोगो ने देखा है।
ियान अंतगशत िारा-202 सी.आर.पी.सी.
साक्षीः गोमती देवी बतवारी aged
about 66 years अबववाबहत पुत्री स्व० कल्िू
बतवारी पेर्ा गृहणी बनवासी ग्राम बवररनयान थाना बिठूर
कानपुर नगर ने सर्पथ ियान बकया बक मैं पंकज कुमार
वमाश की पडोसी ह ूँ तथा मेरा पंकज कुमार वमाश के घर
आना जाना है। जनवरी 2001 की र्ाम को िगिग
5.15 पीएम पर की घर्ना है बक पंकज कुमार वमाश की
पत्नी श्रीमती रेहा वमाश उसका बपता राम औतार कठेररया
व उसकी माूँ श्रीमती आर्ा देवी तथा पांच अन्य िोग
बजनमें मबहिायें िी थी सिी पंकज कुमार वमाश के घर में
घुस गये तथा पंकज कुमार वमाश के माता- बपता व िहन
पूजा को िद्दी- िद्दी गाबिया देते हुये मारपीर् करने िगे
पंकज कुमार की िहन पूजा अपने माता-बपता को िचाने
दौडी तो पंकज कुमार वमाश की सास आर्ा देवी व
उनके साथ आयी मबहिाओं ने पूजा के साथ मारपीर्
की। पंकज की पत्नी रेहा वमाश अपने पबत पंकज के कमरे
में घुस गयी तथा पंकज के छोर्े िाई अबमत की पत्नी
की बडिीवरी के बिये रखे 70,000/- रूपये िूर्
बिये। पुबिस आयी थी सिी को मंिना चौकी िे गयी
थी। यह घर्ना बजस समय हुयी थी मैं पंकज के घर में
मौजूद थी तथा पंकज कुमार वमाश के माता बपता से
बमिने गयी थी। रेहा वमाश ने अपने पबत, सास एवं देवर
के बखिाफ दहेज की मांग का मुकदमा बपता हरदोई में
बकया गया है। ये सि खुद मैने देखा है और मैने जो कुछ
िी देखा वही सि कुछ िता रही ह ूँ। मुझे अि और कुछ
नही कहना है, यही मेरा ियान है।"

4. Learned counsel for opposite
party-2 has supported the impugned order
that on basis of statements recorded during
proceedings and after taking note that there
are sufficient grounds to proceed against
applicants, therefore, impugned order is
passed whereby they were summoned.

5. Heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the record.
638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. It is clearly evident from
statement of complainant under Section
200 Cr.P.C. that he has made sweeping
general and omnibus allegations against all
applicants including that they have stolen
Rs. 70,000/- from his house. It is also
evident from impugned order that trial
Court has disbelieved allegations in regard
to
theft
since
applicants
have
not
summoned under said offence as such
substantial part of statements were found
false, therefore, all witnesses have stated
exaggerated version.

7. It was alleged that applicants
have committed offence for causing hurt
not only with complainant but her relatives
also. No alleged injured was medically
examined since no injury report was placed
on record.

8. In regard to alleged offence of
trespass, allegedly applicant no.1 has come
to her matrimonial house along with her
relatives and since on basis of above
discussion, Court is of opinion that no
offence of causing hurt is made out,
therefore, offence of trespass is also not
made out as it is alleged that after trespass,
applicants have caused hurt to number of
persons of complainant side.

9. So far as ingredients of Section
504 and 506 IPC are concerned, Court
takes note of Mohammad Wajid and
Another Vs. State of U.P. And Others,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 and since their
basic ingredients that there must be an
'alarm' as well as that nature of insult
must be of such extent that complainant
and his associates would be provoked to
breach peace are missing as well as nature
of insult or abusive language was also not
disclosed by any witnesses, therefore,
neither of said offences are made out.
Admittedly, complainant's wife has filed
various cases against complainant and his
family members, therefore, it would be a
reason for false implication of applicants
being counterblast.

10. In aforesaid circumstances,
since impugned order was passed only on
basis of sweeping general and omnibus
allegations against applicants who are 8 in
numbers, therefore, in view of judgment of
Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and
others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 that in the
absence of any specific role attributed to
the accused, it would be unjust if they are
forced to go through the tribulation of a
trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations
cannot manifest in a situation where
relatives of complainant's wife are forced
to undergo trial as well as in view of
Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and
another, 2024 0 INSC 369, I am of
considered opinion that it is a fit case
where inherent powers of this Court could
be invoked.

11. Accordingly, impugned order
dated 16.01.2024 passed by learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Court-1, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 911 of
2021 (Pankaj Kumar vs. Smt. Reha
Sharma and others) under Sections 323,
504, 506, 452 IPC, Police Station- Bithur,
District- Kanpur Nagar, pending before
ACMM, Court-1, Kanpur Nagar and
consequential proceedings thereof are
hereby set aside.

12. In view of above, application
is allowed.

13. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
----------
8 All. Chandra Bhan @ Lalla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
639
(2024) 8 ILRA 639
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Application U/s 482 No. 12982 of 2009

Chandra Bhan @ Lalla & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Pradeep Chandra, Sunita Chauhan

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law- The Code of Criminal
Procedure-1973-Sections
-204,
210
&
482- FIR lodged earlier and Criminal
Complaint
lodged
after
seven
years
thereof are based on same set of facts,
allegations, offence and accused persons-
That filing of instant complaint case and
issuance of summoning order thereon by
learned Magistrate amounts to abuse of
process of law, as this is tantamount to
reopening of a case based on same
allegations
which
has
already
been
concluded on the basis of police report by
orders of the Court, around seven years
before-Result-
impugned
summoning
order
dated
as
well
as
the
entire
proceedings in said complaint case are
hereby quashed. Petition allowed. (Para
12,13 & 27) (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Zunaid Vs St.of U.P. & ors.in Criminal Appeal
Nos. 2628-2629 of 2023

2. A.M. Mohan Vs The St.represented by SHO &
anr.reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 339

3. [G. Sagar Suri v. St.of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC
636]
4. Naresh Kumar & anr. Vs The St.of Karnataka
& anr.2024 SCC Online SC 268 arising out of
SLP (Crl.) No.1570 of 2021

5. Apex Court in Randheer Singh Vs St. of U.P.
(2021) 14 SCC 626

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. As per office report dated
20.08.2024, notice has reportedly been
served on opposite party no.2 personally.

2. Heard Sri Akshay Raj Singh,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Pradeep
Chandra, learned counsel for the applicants,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the record.

3. In the instant application filed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants
have prayed to quash the summoning order
dated 20.04.2009 passed by Judicial
Magistrate, Jalaun in Complaint Case
No.70 of 2009, under Sections 307, 504,
506 IPC and Sections 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST
Act P.S. Ait, District Jalaun and also to
quash the entire proceedings in Complaint
Case No.70 of 2009 with regard to said
matter.

4. Learned counsel for the
applicants submits that opposite party no.2
Lala Ram filed a complaint case with
averments that he belongs to scheduled
caste category and he was working as a
labourer in the field of Munni Babu, who is
a co-villager. He was subjected to forced
labour, day in and day out. In the
intervening night of 17/18.04.2000 at 3:30
hours when opposite party no.2 was taking
rest in Khalihan of Munni Babu, he asked
him to come and do work whereupon he
requested him for being permitted to have
rest, then the accused, Munni Babu abused