Quashed

Ikramuddin and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2018A482/122/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a summons order and criminal proceedings initiated by a complainant with express mala fides and a vendetta against applicants, who are relatives of a litigant opposed by the complainant's aunt.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; summoning order and entire proceedings under Sections 452, 323, 504, and 506 IPC against applicants were quashed.

Ikramuddin and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 122 of 2007

¶3

Applicant :- Ikramuddin & Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Bharti Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,A P Mishra,S K Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

¶5

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicants seeking the quashing of summoning order dated 19.7.2006 as well as further proceedings of Complaint Case No.1574 of 2006 (Shakil Azad vs. Ikramuddin and others), u/s 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar.

¶6

List has been revised. Learned counsel for the applicant is present along with learned A.G.A. Despite repeated calls none has appeared on behalf opposite party no.2. This application is of year 2007. In the wake of heavy pendency of cases in this Court where dockets are already bursting on their seams there is no justifiable reason to further procrastinate the matter. This Court, therefore, deems it fit to proceed in the matter on the basis of the record with the assistance of the learned AGA representing the State.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

¶8

Submission of the counsel is that this is a case in which the complaint has been lodged with express mala fides and it has been admitted in the complaint itself that the aunt of the complainant is having a litigation with her husband Abdullah and the applicants are the relatives of aforesaid Abdullah. What has been suppressed in the complaint is the fact that applicant no.1 is also a counsel for the aforesaid Abdullah. Contention is that because of the same reason the complainant feels indignated, offended and nurtured ill will and malice against the applicants and has lodged this false and concocted complaint against applicant no.1 and his other family members. Submission is that applicant no.2 is the father of the applicant no.1 while applicant no. 3 and 4 are real uncles of applicant

¶9

no.1. Submission is that as it is apparent on the face of record that the allegations made are wholly absurd and highly improbable and no prudent man would like to believe in its truthfulness. Applicant no.1 is an advocate and for no rhyme or reason he or his family members are not expected and cannot be believed to have indulged in such kind of hooliganism as has been alleged. The fact of the matter is that complainant first tried to pursuade applicant no.1 a number of times not to do pairavi on behalf of Abdullah but as it was part of the duty of applicant no.1 to do so, he could not back out and that is the reason this false complaint has been made to exert coercive pressure upon applicant no.1 so that he may not do any pairavi on behalf of aforesaid Abdullah.

¶10

Perused the record in the light of submissions made at the bar.

¶11

Perusal of the record shows that the aunt of the complainant was having a litigation with her husband Abdullah and the applicants are admittedly the relatives of aforesaid Abdullah. The factum of the applicant no.1 being an advocate is also an admitted fact as is apparent from the perusal of the para number 5 of the counter affidavit the nature and allegations as have been made appears to be bristling with high improbabilities and are bordering on absurdity. A lawyer along with his father and uncles cannot be believed to have indulged in making such kind of a assault upon the complainant for no rhyme or reason as has been alleged. It is not unknown in society that in order to exert coercive pressure upon the lawyers people are prone to bring false complaints. Here in this case the applicants are not only relatives of the aforesaid Abdullah who had locked horns with the aunt of the complainant. The applicant no.1 is an advocate doing paravai on his behalf, which explains as to how and why the complainant nurtured malice instincts against applicants. In this regard we may usefully keep in perspective the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 , in which certain categories have been recognized on the basis of which the criminal proceeding against a certain party or the accused may be quashed. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case as follows:-

¶12

"The following categories can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the

¶13

inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court 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:

¶14

(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.

¶15

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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 a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶20

(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."

¶21

In the considered view of this Court this matter falls both in category nos.(5) and (7) mentioned hereinabove. This Court finds reason to hold that the complaint in question is inspired by malice and the version contained therein is full of high improbabilities and the continuation of the proceedings on that basis is likely to result in abuse of

¶22

court's process, and therefore, the summoning order and entire proceeding of complaint in question is liable to be quashed.

¶23

In this view of the matter this application is allowed and the summoning order as well as entire proceeding of complaint in question against the accused-applicants stand quashed.

¶24

A copy of this order be certified to the lower court concerned forthwith.

¶25

Order Date :- 1.8.2018 shiv

Ikramuddin and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ikramuddin and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Surya Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maqsood Vs State of U.P.

M.S. Verma Chief Manager Central Electornics Ltd. and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

V.K. Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Kumar Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Uma Shanker Tiwari and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another