Quashed

Siyaram and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2018A482/6327/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a summoning order. The court found the proceeding was maliciously instituted with false allegations and that medical evidence did not support the prosecution version of pressing the neck with intent to kill.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 19.09.2016 and entire proceedings under Sections 323/34, 307/34, 504 I.P.C. are quashed.

Siyaram and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6327 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Siyaram And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rohit Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Pramod Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Piyush Kumar Shukla, Advocate assisting on behalf of Shri Rohit Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 19.09.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Complaint Case No. 164 of 2016 (Hosiyar Singh Dangu Vs. Siyaram and others), whereby applicants Siyaram, Smt. Sunita @ Geeta, Smt. Manju and Smt. Savitri Devi were summoned for offence punishable under Sections 323/34, 307/34, 504 I.P.C.

¶7

Opposite party no. 2 Hosiyar Singh Dangur has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate with allegation that Smt. Manju Devi is his wife, due to matrimonial dispute she was living at her parental home. On 21.12.2015, he requested from his father-in-law Siyaram on telephone to send his wife at her matrimonial home, his father-in-law Siyaram requested him to come at Mathura for mediation. On 22.12.2015, Hosiyar Singh Dangur along with Anoop Singh went to Firozabad by motorcycle at about 12:00 noon in the jurisdiction of Police Station Ramgarh, his father-in-law Siyaram, Jaipal s/o Siyaram, Smt. Sunita @ Geeta w/o of Jaipal, Smt. Manju d/o Siyaram and Smt. Savitri Devi w/o Siyaram with two unknown miscreants came on spot and started abusing to Hosiyar Singh Dangur by scuffle. They also attempted to kill the complainant by pressing his neck. Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was treated as complaint by Magistrate. Statement of

¶8

complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of witness Anoop Singh and Dr. Shyam Mohan Gupta under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and on the basis of their statements impugned order has been passed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that applicant no. 4 Smt. Manju Devi has filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against complainant/opposite party no. 2 Hosiyar Singh Dangur. She has filed several criminal cases against complainant Hosiyar Singh Dangur and his family members. In counter-blast, this complaint has been filed by him maliciously with false allegation to harass the applicants.

¶10

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that Smt. Manju Devi and her father have lodged several cases against the complainant/opposite party no. 2 Hosiyar Singh Dangur. He has sustained several injuries in this incident. Hosiyar Singh Dangur and Anoop Singh have supported the complaint version, accordingly, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. also contended that there is no any illegality in the impugned order passed by concerned Magistrate.

¶12

From the perusal of record, it reveals that opposite party no. 2 Hosiyar Singh Dangur has sustained only four visible injuries of very trifling in nature. None of the injury is likely to cause death of complainant Hosiyar Singh Dangur. Medical report does not support the version of prosecution that applicants have press the neck of the complainant Hosiyar Singh Dangur with intention to kill. The prosecution version is not natural. From the perusal of the record it reveals that this application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., has been filed maliciously with false allegation.

¶13

Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana And Ors. v. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal And Ors 1992 SCC Supl. (1) 335 held that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised by the High Courts in the following categories :

¶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 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.

¶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 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 Act concerned, 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

This case is squarely covered with the 7th category indicated in Bhajan Lal's case (Supra) .

¶22

Accordingly, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is allowed . The summoning order dated 19.09.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Complaint Case No. 164 of 2016 (Hosiyar Singh Dangu Vs. Siyaram and others), under Sections 323/34, 307/34, 504 I.P.C. as well as entire proceedings are hereby quashed.

¶23

Order Date :- 6.12.2018 M/A.

Siyaram and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siyaram and 4 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

Smt. Vimla Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Matish Chand Vs State of U.P. and Another

Udaibhan Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tabbasum Begum and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shaina Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another