Dismissed¶53

Ritesh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2025A482/3766/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing application dismissed (consigned to record); FIR counterblast contention rejected; Case Crime No. 392 of 2022, ss 147, 354B, 323, 504, 506 IPC, PS Cantt, Bareilly; charge sheet and summoning order not quashed; Judicial Magistrate 2nd Bareilly; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 192 para 23 propositions relied upon; no jurisdictional error conceded; discharge application expected to be decided expeditiously per law; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Justice Vikas Budhwar; order date 14.2.2025.

What did the court decide?

Having heard counsel and gone through the records, the Court found itself unable to subscribe to the applicants' contention seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. ¶10

Ritesh and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings against the applicants arising out of Case Crime No. 392 of 2022 (u/s 147, 354B, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Cantt., District Bareilly), including the charge sheet and summoning order, should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants contending that the FIR dated 28.9.2022 is a counterblast to FIR No. 096 lodged by their faction on 30.9.2022.

¶7

Court's answer

Having heard counsel and gone through the records, the Court found itself unable to subscribe to the applicants' contention seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court cannot conduct an inquiry at the pre-trial stage on factual issues, as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, per the propositions in paragraph 23 of M/S Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2021 SC 192) relied upon by this Court.

¶11

Key takeaways

On a pointed query, learned counsel for the applicants could not point out any jurisdictional error committed by the court below.ratio¶51
In the absence of any jurisdictional infirmity or illegality pointed out by counsel, no good ground exists to quash the charge sheet and the summoning order; equally, this Court finds this is not a fit case wherein the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 should be invoked.ratio¶52
The Court expressed the expectation that, if the applicants prefer a discharge application, it will be decided with utmost expedition strictly in accordance with law, taking into account the facts and law on the subject.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 74), bench of Justice Vikas Budhwar, refused a Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing sought by Ritesh and 5 others of the criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 392 of 2022 (u/s 147, 354B, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Cantt., District Bareilly), pending before Judicial Magistrate, 2nd, District Bareilly. The applicants had claimed the FIR dated 28.9.2022 (Sections 147, 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC) lodged by opposite party no. 2 was a counterblast to FIR No. 096 lodged by their faction on 30.9.2022 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC. Relying on the paragraph 23 propositions of M/S Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2021 SC 192), the Court held that Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to conduct a pre-trial inquiry on factual issues; counsel, on pointed query, conceded no jurisdictional error by the court below; accordingly no ground existed to quash the charge sheet or summoning order and the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 was not fit to be invoked. The application stood consigned to record (dismissed). Counsel indicated an intent to move a discharge application, and the Court expressed confidence that any such application would be decided expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law. Order dated 14.2.2025.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21373

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3766 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ritesh And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ishtiyak Khan (AOR No.A/I 0080/2012), learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Muniraj Mehrotra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The applicant herein has filed the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding against the applicant arising out of Case Crime no. 392 of 2022, State Vs.Ritesh and others, relating to u/s 147, 354B, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Cantt., District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate,2nd, District Bareilly.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entire allegations contained in the first information report dated 28.9.2022, under Section 147, 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC lodged by the opposite party no.2 relates to administered bearing and also showing indecent behaviour towards the sister of the opposite party no.2. He further submits that so far as the opposite party no. 2 is concerned he did not sustain any growing injury, however, the injury sustained by sister Asha is simple in nature. He next submits that already with relatable to the said incident an FIR stood lodged on 30.9.2022 by the applicants faction under Sections 147, 148, 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC being FIR No.096 and injuries are also sustained by the applicants faction and the injury report is not on record. He thus, submits that it is the case of the counterblast.

¶9

Learned AGA on the other submits that once it is admitted to the applicants faction and opposite party no.2 faction that they are already exist an incident occurred on 28.9.022 and injuries have been sustained then it cannot be ruled out that there was no such incident. Further more according to him offences are made out.

¶10

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records and I find myself unable to subscribe to the contention

¶11

so sought to be raised by the applicant particularly in view of the fact that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot conduct inquiry at pretrial stage that too on factual issues as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the case of M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 192 and the paragraph no. 23 culled out the following propositions of law which is enumerated hereinunder:-

¶12

"i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;

¶13

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

¶14

iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

¶15

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ''rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

¶16

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

¶17

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

¶18

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

¶19

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;

¶20

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

¶21

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

¶22

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

¶23

¶24

amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

¶25

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

¶26

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;

¶27

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;

¶28

xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order.

¶30

xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records and I find myself unable to subscribe to the contention so sought to be raised by the applicant particularly in view of the fact that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot conduct inquiry at pre-trial stage that too on factual issues as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the case of M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 192 and the paragraph no. 23 culled out the following propositions of law which is enumerated hereinunder:-

¶32

"i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;

¶33

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

¶34

iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

¶35

¶36

¶37

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

¶38

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

¶39

¶40

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

¶41

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

¶42

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

¶43

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

¶44

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order.

¶50

¶51

On a pointed query, being made to learned counsel for the applicant, as to whether there was any jurisdictional error committed by the court below, the learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any jurisdictional error committed by the court below.

¶52

Resultantly, in absence of any jurisdictional infirmity or illegality pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, no good ground is made to quash the charge sheet as well as the summoning order, as even otherwise, this Court finds that this is not a fit case wherein inherit jurisdiction power under section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973, be invoked.

¶53

In view of above, the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands consigned to record .

¶54

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant shall move discharge application to which learned AGA submits that in case a discharge application is being preferred with the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law.

¶55

In the opinion of the Court, this Court has no reason to disbelieve that in case the discharge application is being preferred then the same shall be decided with most expedition strictly in accordance with law as per the law of the land taking into account the facts and law on the subject.

¶56

Order Date :- 14.2.2025 piyush

¶57

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ritesh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh and 5 Others 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

Kapil Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Chandan Soni vs State of U.P.

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

Suresh Singh Rathore and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others