# Vinod Sharma v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 222
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-24
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 17510 of 2008
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47509
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure - Section 482- Indian Penal
Code,
1860-
Section
499/
500-
Defamation- Offence punishable under
Section
500
I.P.C.
is
to
protect
a
fundamental
right
of
a
person
i.e.
''reputation' which is part of right to
enjoyment of life and liberty and property
having an ancient origin- The word ''Bhu
Maphia' (Hkw&ekfQ;k) has not been used
in the news item- if the word ''Bhu
Maphia' (Hkw&ekfQ;k) has been used by
any
other
newspaper
then
applicant
cannot be prosecuted for the same-
Complaint also in which there are nine
praragraph out of which six paragraph
contain news item of different newspaper
and paragraph no.7, 8 & 9 there are
general allegations collectively against all
the news item in different newspaper
which would not amount to defamation
against the applicant- The learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate without applying the
mind summoned the applicant along with
18 other opposite parties treating all the
news item as common although from
reading
the
news item
no case
of
2 All. Vinod Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
223
defamation under Section 499 & 500 I.P.C.
is made out- No offence under Section 500
I.P.C. is made out, hence proceedings
initiated by Magistrate in the case in hand
is patently illegal and amount to abuse of
process of Court. Therefore, to secure
ends of justice interference of this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is justified and
called for.

Where the applicant has not made the alleged
imputation in the news item harming the
reputation of the complainant and in the complaint
general allegations have been used against news
items of different newspapers, then it cannot be
said that the applicant has defamed the
complainant- summoning of the applicant where
no offence has been committed by him is bad in
law and hence liable to be quashed.

Criminal Application allowed. (E-3) ( Para
14, 15, 16, 18)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

## Text

222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Virupakshappa Vs. C. Subash, AIR 2015
12 SCC 231 has held that High court had
erred in not setting aside an order of trial
court taking cognizance of a complaint in
exercise of power under Section 482
Cr.P.C.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer
Hussain reported in [2020 (113) ACC
and 904] has held that if the sanction as
provided under Section 197 of Criminal
Procedure Code has not been taken, the
order taking cognizance by the Magistrate
will be illegal and the High Court should
exercise the power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding which was
bad for want of sanction.

20. On the basis of law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned
above, it is well settled that an application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable
to quash the proceedings, which are ex
facie bad for want of sanction. If, on the
face of complaint, the act alleged appears
to have a reasonable relationship with
official duty power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. would have to be exercised to quash
the proceedings to prevent abuse of process
of Court.

21. In view of the facts and
circumstances stated above, I am of the
view that learned Magistrate has illegally
taken
cognizance
of
the
offence
summoning the applicants under section
427 IPC, which is ex facie bad for want of
sanction. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is allowed. The summoning order
dated 14.03.2007 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate IIIrd Room No.12 Farrukhabad
in complaint case No.28 of 2006 is set
aside and complaint is also quashed for
want of sanction in exercise of power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022)02ILR A222
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 17510 of 2008

Vinod Sharma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A)
Criminal
Law-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure - Section 482- Indian Penal
Code,
1860-
Section
499/
500-
Defamation- Offence punishable under
Section
500
I.P.C.
is
to
protect
a
fundamental
right
of
a
person
i.e.
''reputation' which is part of right to
enjoyment of life and liberty and property
having an ancient origin- The word ''Bhu
Maphia' (Hkw&ekfQ;k) has not been used
in the news item- if the word ''Bhu
Maphia' (Hkw&ekfQ;k) has been used by
any
other
newspaper
then
applicant
cannot be prosecuted for the same-
Complaint also in which there are nine
praragraph out of which six paragraph
contain news item of different newspaper
and paragraph no.7, 8 & 9 there are
general allegations collectively against all
the news item in different newspaper
which would not amount to defamation
against the applicant- The learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate without applying the
mind summoned the applicant along with
18 other opposite parties treating all the
news item as common although from
reading
the
news item
no case
of
2 All. Vinod Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
223
defamation under Section 499 & 500 I.P.C.
is made out- No offence under Section 500
I.P.C. is made out, hence proceedings
initiated by Magistrate in the case in hand
is patently illegal and amount to abuse of
process of Court. Therefore, to secure
ends of justice interference of this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is justified and
called for.

Where the applicant has not made the alleged
imputation in the news item harming the
reputation of the complainant and in the complaint
general allegations have been used against news
items of different newspapers, then it cannot be
said that the applicant has defamed the
complainant- summoning of the applicant where
no offence has been committed by him is bad in
law and hence liable to be quashed.

Criminal Application allowed. (E-3) ( Para
14, 15, 16, 18)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

1. Kiran Bedi Vs Committee of Inquiry &
anr.(1989) 1 SCC 494

2. R.P. Kapur Vs St. of Punj. AIR 1960 S.C. 866

3. D. Devaraja Vs Owais Sabeer Hussain, 2020
(113) ACC 904

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1. The instant application under Section
482 of
Code of
Criminal
Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as ''Code') has been
filed to quash the proceeding of the
Complaint Case No.412 of 1999, under
Section 500 I.P.C. (Ajeet Singh Tomar Vs.
Khichchu Singh and others) pending in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gautambudh
Nagar.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that
applicant was working as a reporter in the
Amar Ujala daily newspaper since long and
he never published any news which is
incorrect, a news item on the basis of press
conference has been published in the Meerut
edition daily newspaper Amar Ujala dated
15.07.1999 that the Pradhan- Khichchu Singh
of Shahpur Goverdhanpur told that Ajeet
Singh Tomar @ Bajrangi son of Shri Horam
has illegally taken possession of the Gaon
Sabha land recorded as pasture land and in
this regard complaint has been also made to
the District Magistrate as well as to the
Commissioner. He also alleged that 510
bighas of land situated at Chakshalapur has
been sold out by Ajeet Singh Tomar & his
brothers, the dispute in respect to these plots
is pending in the Court of Haryana State. He
further alleged that the complaint was made
to District Magistrate- Gautambudh Nagar to
inqure into the matter relating to unauthorised
& illegal possession of land, the Grampradhan further alleged that culprits have
threatened to kill him. Villagers of the village
have also complained to NOIDA authority
and the NOIDA authority has written a letter
to District Magistrate to inquire into the
irregularity. Ajeet Singh Tomar in his
statement has said that on his complaint
government has registered seven cases in
respect to forged sale-deed at Police Station-
Sector- 39. He further states that on
abovementioned land of Gaon Sabha, a
temple is situated for the last 10 years and he
has no concern with the land of Gaon Sabha.
Ajeet Singh Tomar also demanded inquiry
against the charges labelled by Gram
Pradhan, the extract of news item is as
follows:-

"अमि उजाला " मेिठ 15 जुलाई,
1999

ग्राम समाज की जमीन कब्जा कि
बेच देने का आिोप

अमि उजाला ब्यूिो नोएडा, 14
जुलाई।
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

शाहपुि गोविटन पुि के प्रिान स्खच्चू
लसह ने कई गाववालें के ग्राम समाज की भूलम
बेच देने का आिोप लगाया है।

प्रिान ने बताया लक ग्राम िोलहल्लापुि
के खाता सीं०63 व खसिा नीं० 8 िकबा 3 वीघा 10
लवस्वा (ग्राम समाज) खाता नीं० 63 खसिा सीं० 64
की 14 वीघा 6 लवस्वा (लसींचाई लवभाग), शाहपुि
गोविटनपुि के खसिा नीं० 194 की 200 कच्चा
वीघा ( गऊचि भूलम) व ग्राम चकसलािपुि के
खसिा नम्बि 2/1, 2/4, 2/3, 2/6, व हरिजनोीं की
50 वीघा जमीन पि अलजत लसींह तोमि उिट
बजिींगी पुत्र श्री होिाम ने अवैि रूप से कब्जा
कि ललया है। इसके बािे में लजलालिकािी व
मेिठ मण्डल के आयुक्त से लशकायत की गयी
प्रिान के अनुसाि यही नही अजीत व उसके
भाईयोीं ने चकसालिपुि की लगभग 510 वीघा
जमीन भी बेच दी उसने बताया लक लववाद के
कािण इस भूलम को लेकि हरियाणा की
अदालत में मुकदमा चल िहा है।

स्खच्चू लसह ने पत्रकािोीं को बताया लक
उसने
28
जून
99
को
लजलालिकािी
गौतमबुद्धनगि, को पत्र ललखकि जमीनोीं पि हो
िहे अवैि कब्जोीं की जाींच किाने की माींग की िी
इससे पूवट 14 मई 98 को भी इस लसललसले में
लशकायत की गयी िी। ग्राम प्रिान का आिोप है
लक लशकायत के बाद आिोलपयोीं ने उसे जान से
मािने की िमकी दी।

उसका यही कहना है लक ग्रामीणोीं
द्वािा इन मामलोीं की लशकायत नोएडा,
प्रालिकिण के लवशेष कायाटलिकािी (डी) से की
गयी िी। इस पि लवशेष कायाटलिकािी ने 15 जून
99
को
लजलालिकािी
को
पत्र
ललखकि
अलनयलमतताओीं की जाींच किने का आदेश
लदया।

उिि िोलहल्लापुि लनवासी अजीत लसींह
तोमि ने एक बयान में दावा लकया लक उनकी
लशकायत पि शासन ने िाना सेक्टि 39 में िजी
बैनामें के सात मुकदमें दजट लकए है।

उन्ोींने कहा लक ग्राम सभा के लजस
भूलम पि कब्जे की बात है वहाीं एक मींलदि 10 वषट से
बना हुआ है। उससे उनका कोई लेना देना नही इसी
तिह लसींचाई लवभाग की जमीन पि सड़क बनी हुई
है। अजीत लसींह तोमि ने ग्राम प्रिान द्वािा लगाये गये
आिोपो की जाींच किाने की माींग की सींवाददाता
सम्मेलन मे ग्राम प्रिान के अलावा देवेन्द्र शमाट,
अलनल,
अमनलसह,
गुलाबलसींह
(उपप्रिान)
िणजीतलसींह, लवशनलसह, श्रीिाम व मदनलाल चढढा
व सुनील कुमाि चढढा उपस्थित िे।

(सत्य प्रलतलललप)"

3. The aforementioned news was
published in several newspaper in their
own languages. Complainant ,opposite
party no.2 (Ajeet Singh Tomar), filed a
Complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate,
Gautam
Budh
Nagar
on
12.08.1999 impleading 19 persons in which
applicant was arrayed as opposite party
no.11, in the complaint it was alleged that
on the basis of news published in Amar
Ujala on 15.7.1999, his image has been
tarnished & news published is totally false,
as such, accused is liable to be prosecuted
under Section 500 I.P.C.

4. A perusal of record reveals that
statement of complainant-opposite party
no.2 was recorded under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C. on 27.8.1999 and a statement of one
Sukhpal alias Kapoor was recorded on
8.9.1999. The learned Magistrate by order
dated 12.11.1999 summoned the applicant
& 18 others, under Section 500 I.P.C. on
the ground that prima-facie the word ''Bhu
Maphia' (Hkw&ekfQ;k) comes under the
definition of defamation. Revision filed
against
the
summoning
order
dated
12.11.1999 was dismissed by Session
Judge by order dated 30.4.2008 as not
maintanable.
2 All. Vinod Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
225

5. Heard Shri Chandra Bhan Gupta,
learned counsel for the applicant and
learned A.G.A. for the State. Nobody putin-appearance on behalf of opposite party
no.2 in spite of the notice issued to him on
14.7.2008. The order dated 14.7.2008
passed by this Court is as follows:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and the learned A.G.A.

The
applicant,
through
the
present application under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
has
invoked
the
inherent
jurisdiction of the Court with the prayer
that the proceeding of Complaint Case
No.412 of 1999, Ajeet Singh Tomar Vs.
Khichchu Singh and other, under Section
500 of IPC, pending in the Court of C.J.M.
Gautam Budh Nagar be quashed.

Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants
contended
that
malicious
prosecution has been launched against the
applicant
only
for
the
purposes
of
harrasement.

Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants is directed to serve respondent
no.2 through RPAD within a period of a
week from today. Respondent no.2 is
allowed three weeks time to file counter
affidavit from the date of service of notice
upon him. AGA is also allowed the same
time to file counter affidavit on behalf of
rest of the respondents.

List this case in the week
commencing 18th August, 2008.

Till the next date of listing,
further proceedings of Complaint Case
No.412 of 1999, Ajeet Singh Tomar Vs.
Khichchu Singh and other, under Section
500 of IPC, pending in the Court of C.J.M.
Gautambudh Nagar shall remain stayed as
against the applicant only."

6. The learned counsel for the
applicant contended that from the news
item published in Hindi News Paper Amar
Ujala dated 15.7.1999, no offence of
defamation is made out against the
applicant,
therefore,
summoning
of
applicant under Section 500 I.P.C. by
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Gautambudh Nagar is abuse of process of
law, as such, proceeding of the case is
liable to be set aside. He further submitted
that applicant has not given any opinion of
his own, only statements of Gram Pradhan-
Khichchu Singh as well as Ajeet Singh
Tomar were published in the newspaper.
The counsel further submitted that the
applicant has not used the word ''Bhu
Maphia' (Hkw&ekfQ;k) in the newspaper but
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
considered the combined facts of the news
items published by several newspapers in
different manner regarding statement of
Gram Pradhan & Ajeet Singh Tomar &
illegally summoned all the opposite parties
including the applicant which is wholly
illegal, as such, the proceeding for
complaint against the applicant amounts to
harassment
of
accused
applicant
by
initiating unlawful and illegal proceedings.

7. The learned A.G.A. on the other
hand supported the impugned summoning
order dated 12.11.1999 and contended
that
learned
Magistrate
has
rightly
summoned the accused-applicant under
Section 500 I.P.C. after taking evidence
under Section 200 and 202 I.P.C., no
interference is called for, prima facie
offence punishable under Section 500
I.P.C. is made out, therefore, application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserve to be
dismissed.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the
applicant as well as state and perused
records as also authorities & relevant law
on the subject.
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. First of all the Court will examine
the ingredient of Section 499 and Section
500 I.P.C. which reads as under:-

"499. Defamation.--Whoever, by
words either spoken or intended to be read,
or by signs or by visible representations,
makes
or
publishes
any
imputation
concerning any person intending to harm,
or knowing or having reason to believe that
such imputation will harm, the reputation
of such person, is said, except in the cases
hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

Explanation 1.--It may amount to
defamation to impute anything to a
deceased person, if the imputation would
harm the reputation of that person if living,
and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings
of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2.--It may amount to
defamation
to
make
an
imputation
concerning a company or an association or
collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3.--An imputation in
the form of an alternative or expressed
ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4.--No imputation is
said to harm a person's reputation, unless
that imputation directly or indirectly, in the
estimation of others, lowers the moral or
intellectual character of that person, or
lowers the character of that person in
respect of his caste or of his calling, or
lowers the credit of that person, or causes
it to be believed that the body of that
person is in a loathsome state, or in a state
generally considered as disgraceful.

First Exception.--Imputation of
truth which public good requires to be
made or published.--It is not defamation to
impute anything which is true concerning
any person, if it be for the public good that
the
imputation
should
be
made
or
published. Whether or not it is for the
public good is a question of fact.

Second
Exception.--Public
conduct of public servants.--It is not
defamation to express in a good faith any
opinion whatever respecting the conduct of
a public servant in the discharge of his
public
functions,
or
respecting
his
character, so far as his character appears
in that conduct, and no further.

Third
Exception.--Conduct
of
any person touching any public question.-
-It is not defamation to express in good
faith any opinion whatever respecting the
conduct of any person touching any public
question, and respecting his character, so
far as his character appears in that
conduct, and no further.

Fourth
Exception.--Publication
of reports of proceedings of Courts.--It is
not defamation to publish substantially true
report of the proceedings of a Court of
Justice, or of the result of any such
proceedings.

Explanation.--A Justice of the
Peace or other officer holding an inquiry in
open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court
of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of
the above section.

Fifth Exception.--Merits of case
decided in Court or conduct of witnesses
and
others
concerned.--It
is
not
defamation to express in good faith any
opinion whatever respecting the merits of
any case, civil or criminal, which has been
decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting
the conduct of any person as a party,
witness or agent, in any such case, or
respecting the character of such person, as
far as his character appears in that
conduct, and no further.

Sixth
Exception.--Merits
of
public performance.--It is not defamation
to express in good faith any opinion
respecting the merits of any performance
which its author has submitted to the
judgment of the public, or respecting the
2 All. Vinod Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
227
character of the author so far as his
character appears in such performance,
and no further.

Explanation.--A
performance
may be substituted to the judgment of the
public expressly or by acts on the part of
the author which imply such submission to
the judgment of the public.

Seventh
Exception.--Censure
passed in good faith by person having
lawful authority over another.--It is not
defamation in a person having over
another any authority, either conferred by
law or arising out of a lawful contract
made with that other, to pass in good faith
any censure on the conduct of that other in
matters to which such lawful authority
relates.

Eighth
Exception.--Accusation
preferred in good faith to authorised
person.--It is not defamation to prefer in
good faith an accusation against any
person to any of those who have lawful
authority over that person with respect to
the subject-matter of accusation.

Ninth
Exception.--Imputation
made in good faith by person for
protection of his or other's interests.--It is
not defamation to make an imputation on
the character of another provided that the
imputation be made in good faith for the
protection of the interests of the person
making it, or of any other person, or for the
public good.

Tenth
Exception.--Caution
intended for good of person to whom
conveyed or for public good.--It is not
defamation to convey a caution, in good
faith, to one person against another,
provided that such caution be intended for
the good of the person to whom it is
conveyed, or of some person in whom that
person is interested, or for the public good.

500. Punishment for defamation.-
-Whoever
defames
another
shall
be
punished with simple imprisonment for a
term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both."

10. Offence of defamation, therefore,
consist of three essential ingredients,

(i) making or publishing an
imputation concerning a person.

(ii) such imputation must have
been made by words either spoken or
intended to be read or by signs or by visible
representations.

(iii) the said imputation must
have been made with the intention of
harming or with the knowledge or having
reason to believe that it will harm the
reputation of the person concerned.

11. Thus to bring an offence under
Section 500 I.P.C. prosecution has to show

(a) that an imputation was made
consisting of words spoken or written or
intended to be read or made by signs or
visible representations

(b) that the imputation concerned
the complainant i.e. the person defamed
and the person who has come forward qua
complaint
alleging
that
defamation
concerned him are identical persons

(c) that the accused made or
published the incriminating imputation and

(d) that the intention behind
making and publishing words causing harm
to the reputation of such person.

11. Offence punishable under Section
500 I.P.C., therefore, is to protect a
fundamental
right
of
a
person
i.e.
''reputation' which is part of right to
enjoyment of life and liberty and property
having an ancient origin as explained by
Honb'le the Supreme Court in a case
reported in (1989) 1 SCC 494 Kiran Bedi
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Vs. Committee of Inquiry and another
wherein Court reproduced the observations
from D.F. Marion Vs. Davis 10 55 ALR
171 as under:-

"The right to enjoyment of a
private reputation unassailed by malicious
slander is of ancient origin and is necessary
to human society. A good reputation is an
element of personal security and is
protected by the constitution equally with
the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty
and property."

12. Now I propose to consider
whether news item said to have been
published in Hindi daily newspaper "Amar
Ujala" taking on the face of it to be correct
satisfy the requirement of Section 499
I.P.C. so as to constitute an offence of
defamation punishable under Section 500
I.P.C.

13. The published news items contain
following heading

"xzke lekt dh tehu dCtk dj csp
nsus dk vkjksi"

14. The news item further talks of
statement of Gram Pradhan Kichchu Singh
against Ajeet Singh Tomar @ Bajrangi in
the press conference regarding illegal
possession over Gaon Sabha state land;
second part talks of a cases pending in the
Court at the instance of parties in respect to
land belonging to Gaon Sabha & State and
third part deals with the statement of Ajeet
Singh Tomar that he has no concern with
the Gaon Sabha & state land. It is material
to state that applicant has not given any
opinion in his own against Ajeet Singh
Tomar alias Bajrangi. Even the word ''Bhu
Maphia' (Hkw&ekfQ;k) has not been used in
the news item of "Amar Ujala" if the word
''Bhu Maphia' (Hkw&ekfQ;k) has been used by
any other newspaper then applicant cannot
be prosecuted for the same.

15. I go through the complaint also in
which there are nine praragraph out of
which six paragraph contain news item of
different newspaper and paragraph no.7, 8
&
9
there
are
general
allegations
collectively against all the news item in
different newspaper which would not
amount to defamation against the applicant.

16. The learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate without applying the mind
summoned the applicant along with 18
other opposite parties treating all the news
item as common although from reading the
news item of Amar Ujala dated 15.3.1999
no case of defamation under Section 499 &
500 I.P.C. is made out.

17. Now on the question of
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
whether interference would be justified or
not it will be appropriate to consider the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in AIR 1960 S.C. 866, R.P. Kapur
Vs. State of Punjab wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that inherent
jurisdiction can be exercised to quash
proceedings in a proper case either to
prevent abuse of process in Court or
otherwise to secure ends of justice.
Ordinarily criminal proceeding instituted
against accused persons must be tried in
accordance with procedure prescribed in
Cr.P.C. and this Court should be reluctant
to interfere with the said proceedings at an
interlocutory
stage
but
an order
of
summoning is not an interlocutory order
since it compels that accused person to
come to the Court and face trial and his
valuable right of freedom to some extant
are affected, hence in such cases if it can be
2 All. Satvir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
229
shown that there is legal bar against
institution or continuance of proceedings,
Court would interfere. For example,
absence of requisite sanction could be one
of such matters where Court would be
justified for quashing the proceedings
exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Next
category
is
where
allegations
contained in F.I.R. or complaint, if taken at
their face value and accepted in entirety to
be correct still do not constitute the offence
alleged. While framing its opinion Court
will not examine or appreciate any
evidence and it will only look to the
complaint or F.I.R. to decide whether
offence alleged is made out or not. If no
offence is made out, Court would be
justified to interfere. Then the third
category is where allegations made against
accused persons may constitute offence
alleged but there is either no "legal
evidence" adduced in support of case or
evidence adduced, clearly and manifestly,
fails to prove the charge. In such case also
interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
would be justified.

18. The case in hand will come under
Second category as from reading the
complaint in which new item of Hindi daily
newspaper dated 15.3.1999 is quoted in
paragraph no.2 of the complaint, no offence
under Section 500 I.P.C. is made out, hence
proceedings initiated by Magistrate in the
case in hand is patently illegal and amount
to abuse of process of Court. Therefore, to
secure ends of justice interference of this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is justified
and called for.

19. Honb'le Supreme Court in recent
case reported in 2020 (113) ACC 904, D.
Devaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain has
discussed the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
& found that the interference under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the
criminal proceeding is justified, the
paragraph no.77 of the said judgment is as
follows:-

"It is well settled that an
application under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable
to quash proceedings which are ex facie
bad for want of sanction, frivolous or in
abuse of process of court. If, on the face of
the complaint, the act alleged appears to
have a reasonable relationship with
official
duty,
where
the
criminal
proceeding is apparently prompted by
mala fides and instituted with ulterior
motive, power under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code would have to
be exercised to quash the proceedings, to
prevent abuse of process of Court."

20. In view of the discussion made
above, the application is allowed. The
proceeding of the Complaint Case No.412
of 1999, under Section 500 I.P.C. (Ajeet
Singh Tomar Vs. Khichchu Singh &
Others) pending in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar against the
applicant only is quashed. It is made clear
that by this order the proceedings against
remaining accused has not been quashed.
There is no order as to costs.
----------
(2022)02ILR A229
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 18110 of 2009

Satvir Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties