The High Court dismissed the applicant's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings for rape and POCSO offences, holding that the court cannot examine the veracity of witnesses or evidence at this stage and that the FIR prima facie discloses the offence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. 78
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Application U/S 482 No. 21837 of 2024
Khursheed
… Applicant
versus
State of U.P. & Another ...Opposite Parties
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.
2
intoxicated medicine and when to the victim complained her mother, the mother of the victim threatened her not to disclose it to anyone and on 03.08.2023 at 1.00 P.M. applicant and father of the victim again committed rape with the victim after intoxicating medicine in presence of her mother. Thereafter the victim escaped herself from the clutches of the accused persons and told the whole story to the first informant and persons of the colony and the first informant brought the victim to the Police Station. The local police sent the victim in the custody of the first informant wherein the first informant and person of the colony are giving treatment to the victim.
3
“28. In Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U.P. , (2008) 8 SCC 781, this Court held that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C 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.
31. As held by this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gourieshetty Mahesh, (2010) 11 SCC 226, the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry into whether the evidence is reliable or not or whether there is reasonable possibility that the accusation would not be sustained.
32. In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court held:-
‘12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court…’
33. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, a three-Judge Bench of this Court summarized the law with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. This Court held:—
4
‘7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.’
34. In Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1, this Court observed:—
‘46. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.’
35. It is a well settled proposition of law that criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified, is not vitiated on account of malafides or vendetta. As said by Krishna Iyer, J. in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471 “if the use of the power for the fulfilment of a legitimate object the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal.”
5
Dated: 08.08.2024 MAA/-
(Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.)
Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Daxaben vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors.Referred¶19
Daxaben vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936 · Who else cites this
Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U.P.Referred¶20
Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U.P., (2008) 8 SCC 781 · Who else cites this
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gourieshetty MaheshReferred¶21
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gourieshetty Mahesh, (2010) 11 SCC 226 · Who else cites this
Paramjeet Batra v. State of UttarakhandReferred¶22
Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 · Who else cites this
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao AngreReferred¶24
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 · Who else cites this
Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of UttaranchalReferred¶27
Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
State of Punjab v. Gurdial SinghReferred¶29
State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Khursheed
State of U.P.
Another
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
