Dismissed¶26

Smt Sayra Bi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 May 2025NA528/5315/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS application dismissed; Section 203 CrPC dismissal of complaint upheld; gang-rape allegations under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 IPC; prima facie case and sufficient ground for proceeding; summoning order set aside in criminal revision and matter remanded; contradictions in complainant and witness statements; parties related to each other; allegations did not inspire confidence; S.N. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar AIR 2001 SC 12960 relied on; Nirmaljit Singh Hoon; Chandra Deo Singh; Nagawwa v. Kongalgi referred; Rampur; Allahabad High Court 2025.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order does not suffer from any patent illegality; there is nothing to show any abuse of the process of Court or miscarriage of justice requiring indulgence under Section 528 BNSS, and the application lacks merit. ¶26

Smt Sayra Bi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 dismissing the applicant's complaint under Section 203 CrPC is against facts and law and liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Though serious allegations of gang-rape were made, in view of the attending facts and circumstances, particularly that both parties are related to each other, the allegations do not inspire confidence; the learned Magistrate noted contradictions in the statements of the complainant and witnesses and observed the incident appears concocted.

¶25

Key takeaways

If a bare perusal of the complaint or the evidence led in support of it shows that essential ingredients of the offence alleged are absent, that the dispute is only of a civil nature, or that there are patent absurdities in the evidence produced such that proceeding further would waste time, the complaint may properly be dismissed under Section 203 CrPC.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Raj Beer Singh, J.) dismissed an application under Section 528 BNSS challenging the order dated 24.09.2024 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.2, Rampur, in Complaint Case No.11 of 2024 (Smt. Sayra Bi v. Farman Ali and others) under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 IPC, whereby the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 CrPC. An earlier summoning order dated 03.02.2024 had been set aside in revision on 20.07.2024 and the matter remanded. The Court reiterated that a complaint may properly be dismissed under Section 203 where essential ingredients of the offence are absent, the dispute is purely civil, or the evidence discloses patent absurdities. Finding contradictions in the statements of the complainant and witnesses, that the incident appeared concocted, and that the gang-rape allegations, the parties being related to each other, did not inspire confidence, the Court held there was no patent illegality, abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. Reliance placed on S.N. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2001 SC 12960.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76914

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5315 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt Sayra Bi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mirza Ali Zulfaqar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 528 BNSS has been preferred against the order dated 24.09.2024, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.2, Rampur in Complaint Case No.11 of 2024 (Smt. Sayra Bi v. Farman Ali and others), under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Milak, District- Rampur, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant has been dismissed under Section 203 CrPC.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. The applicant has lodged above-referred complaint against the opposite party nos.2 to 5, wherein inter alia it was alleged that on 15.02.2024 on the pretext of providing lift to the complainant in car, they took the complainant and her mother into Jungle and there they have tied the mother of complainant and committed rape upon the complainant. It was submitted that there were serious allegations of rape and a prima facie case is made out. Initially, the opposite party nos.2 to 5 were summoned by the learned Magistrate vide summoning order dated 03.02.2024. Said opposite parties have has preferred a criminal revision against that order which was allowed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge,

¶8

Court No.2, Rampur vide order dated 20.07.2024 and the summoning order was set aside and matter was remanded back to the learned Magistrate. After that, the complaint of applicant has been dismissed by impugned order dated 24.09.2024. Learned counsel submitted that there are allegations of gang-rape against the private opposite parties and a prima facie case was made out and thus, the learned Magistrate has committed error by dismissing the complaint under Section 203 CrPC. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶11

Before proceeding further, it would be expedient to go through the provisions as enunciated under Sections 203 and 204 Cr.P.C., which reads as under :-

¶12

Section 203 Cr.P.C.

¶13

"Dismissal of complaint- If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing."

¶14

Section 204 Cr.P.C.

¶15

"204.Issue of process. (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be-

¶16

(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or

¶17

(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction."

¶18

Thus, it is clear that as per the procedure prescribed for proceedings with regard to the complaint case after recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202 Cr.P.C., if the

¶19

Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding exist and he may dismiss the complaint. It is well settled that if a bare perusal of a complaint or the evidence led in support of it shows that essential ingredients of the offence alleged are absent or that the dispute is only a civil nature or that there are such patent absurdities in evidence produced that it would be a waste of time to proceed further, the complaint could be properly dismissed under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code.

¶20

In S.N. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2001 SC 12960 while examining the scope of section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 has held as under :

¶21

"15. In case of a complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. or IPC a Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence made out and then has to examine the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused to issue process so that the issue of process is prevented on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass. Such examination is provided in order to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding. The words 'sufficient ground' used under Section 202 have to be construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction.

¶22

16. This Court in Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. The State of West Bengal and others, (1993)(3)SCC 753), in para 22, referring to scheme of Sections 200-203 of Cr.P.C. has explained that "The section does not say that a regular trial of adjudging truth or otherwise of the person complained against should take place at that stage, for, such a person can be called upon to answer the accusation made against him only when a process has been issued and he is on trial. Section 203 consists of two parts. The first part lays down the materials which the Magistrate must consider, and the second part says that if after considering those materials there is in his judgment not sufficient ground for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint. In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose (1964 (1)SCR 639) where dismissal of a complaint by the Magistrate at the stage of Section 2092 inquiry was set aside, this Court laid down that the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction, and observed (p.653) that where there was prima facie evidence, even though the person charged of an offence in the complaint might have a defence, the matter had to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue a process could not be refused. Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is self-contradictory, or intrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if that evidence makes out a prima facie case."

¶23

17. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kongalgi (1976(3) SCC 736) this Court dealing with the scope of inquiry under Section 202 has stated that it is extremely limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint (a) on the materials placed by the complainant before the Court (b) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; (C) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. It is also indicated by way of illustration in which cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process can be quashed on such case being "where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged

¶24

against the accused."

¶25

In the instant matter, it appears from the record that both the parties are related to each other. The allegation of complainant that applicants have offered lift to complainant and her mother and they took them into Jungle and tied the mother of complainant with a tree and committed gang-rape upon complainant, lack cogency and efficacy. In view of the attending facts the allegations appear absurd. Though, generally a woman would not make false allegations of molestation against a person but now a days it is uncommon that in many cases false allegations of rape and sexual molestation are made so as to settle score in some other dispute. There are cases where such false charges are found motivated by motive like revenge, extortion or to exert undue pressure in property and other disputes. Learned Magistrate has noted that there were contradictions in the statement of complainant and of witnesses and further observed that incident appears to be concocted. Though, the victim has made serious allegations of gang-rape but in view of all attending facts and circumstances of the matter, particularly when both the parties are related to each other, said allegations do not inspire confidence.

¶26

Considering the entire facts and material on record, it cannot be said that the impugned order is suffering from any patent illegality. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of the process of Court or miscarriage of justice so as to require any indulgence by this Court by invoking powers under Section 528 BNSS. Application u/s 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.

¶27

Accordingly, the application u/s 528 BNSS is dismissed.

¶28

Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Rama Kant

¶29

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

Smt Sayra Bi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sayra Bi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

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