Dinesh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64362

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3347 of 2025 Applicant :- Dinesh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application u/s 482 CrPC has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 13.11.2024, of Complaint Case No. 7333 of 2024 (Poonam Kumari v. Dinesh and others), under Sections 452, 354, 504, 506, 323, 324 of IPC, P.S.- Mohammadabad, District- Farrukhabad, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), District- Farrukhabad.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that impugned complaint has been lodged by making false and baseless allegations. Regarding an incident dated 09.03.2023, the applicant no.2- Rajnesh has lodged a non-cognizable report against the husband of opposite party no.2 for offence under Sections 323, 504 IPC. The applicant no.2 has filed an application under Section 155(2) CrPC for investigation in that matter and after that the opposite party no.2 has filed the impugned complaint on 21.04.2023 showing a false incident of 12.04.2023. The impugned complaint has been lodged as a counterblast to the non-cognizable report lodged by the applicant no.2. There is long delay in making the impugned complaint as well as in medical examination of the complainant. Injuries shown to the complainant are false and manufactured. Learned counsel for the applicants has referred the statement of complainant and of witnesses and submitted that there

¶8

are material contradictions in the statement of witnesses. Learned counsel has referred facts of the matter and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants and the impugned proceedings are malicious and counterblast and thus, liable to be quashed.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that a prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record

¶11

The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

¶12

In the instant matter, the opposite party no.2/complainant has lodged the impugned complaint alleging that on 12.04.2023 the applicants trespassed into her house and they caught and assaulted her. They have also abused and threatened to kill her. In medication examination report of complainant, five injuries, including four contusions, have been shown on the body of

¶13

complainant. The complainant has supported the version of complaint in her statement under Section 200 CrPC. The version of complainant is further supported by medication examination report. The witnesses examined under Section 202 CrPC have also supported the version of complainant. It is correct that it was shown that on 09.03.2023 a non-cognizable report was lodged against the husband of opposite party no.2/complainant but in view of the aforesaid facts, particularly considering that five injuries were shown on the body of complainant, the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that earlier, applicant no.2 has lodged a non-cognizable report against the husband of opposite party no.2.

¶14

In view of material on record, it can not be said that no primafacie case is made out against applicants. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned/adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

¶15

After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 482 CrPC. In view of material on record, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings or any other interference is made out. Hence, the present application under Section 482 CrPC is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

Accordingly, the application u/s 482 CrPC is hereby dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Rama Kant

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vishal vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajiv Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Chetram and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Piyush and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Tiwari @ Chhotu vs State of U.P.