Allahabad High Court
Harun And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 21 July, 2026
Author: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:49878 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 3036 of 2019 Harun and Anr. ..Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. and Anr. ..Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravi Singh, Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Court No. - 23 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. This application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred to as Cr.P.C.) has been filed to set aside the impugned summoning order dated 26.04.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)/A.C.J.M. Balrampur in Complaint Case No. 1075 of 2017 titled as Sheela Devi Vs. Nanke and another as well as the order dated 06.04.2019 passed by Additional District Judge, Balrampur in Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2018 titled as Harun and another Vs. Smt Sheela Devi and another.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.07.2017 at about 11:30 PM in the night after entering into the house of complainant/victim both the petitioners forcibly committed rape on her and when complainant/victim resisted then they hurled abuses and threatened her for life. The complainant/victim gave information to police station Tulsipur in this regard, but she was unheard then she moved several applications to several forums including Superintendent of Police Balrampur, despite of above effort, no FIR had been lodged. Ultimately, she filed an application under section 156 (3) of the CrPC before the CJM Balrampur and the said application was treated as a complaint and in consequence, statement of the victim was recorded under Section 200 CrPC and statement of her witnesses, Rajman and Prakash were also recorded under Section 202 of the CrPC. Thereafter, upon considering the entire facts, evidences available on the record, learned trial court passed a detailed summoning order 26.04.2018 observing that in view of the evidences available on the record prima facie case under Section 376-D of the Indina Penal Code (herein after referred to as IPC) against accused persons is made out, Resultantly the petitioners Harun and Nanke were summoned for the offence under Section 376D of the IPC.
3. The summoning order dated 26/4/2018 was assailed before the Revision Court by the accused persons in Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2028 wherein after affording the opportunity of hearing to the both parties learned Revision Court passed the impugned judgment and order dated 06.4.2019 observing that the learned trial court had given sufficient grounds and reasons to summon the accused in its summoning order dated 26.04.2018 and in the impugned order dated 26.04.2018 there is no illegality or irregularity, consequently, criminal revision was dismissed. Thereafter, this petition under section 482 of the CrPC has been filed by the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since 12.07.2013 the husband of the complaint was missing and the FIR had been lodged in the shape of Crime No. 314/2013, but without lapsing of seven years, complainant started to sell the land of her husband and when her mother-in-law resisted and raised the objection and one FIR had also been lodged against the complainant under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 364 of the IPC in Case Crime No. 1288/16, in which charge-sheet has also been filed, then complainant became annoyed and made every effort to indulge the petitioners in false case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the complainant has filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 370 of 2016 against petitioners before the Civil Judge, Balarmpur, which is pending. Thereafter, mother-in-law (named as Phula) along with petitioners filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed against the complainant, which is also pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balarmpur. It is also submitted that mounting the pressure on petitioners complainant conspired and moved an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., giving a criminal color, which was registered as the complaint case and thereafter false statement of the complainant and her witnesses were recorded. On that basis petitioners have been summoned. He next submits that no prima facie case is made out while the whole story narrated in complaint is based on the backdrop of the civil litigation. The statement given under section 200 of the CrPC and 202 of the CrPC are contradictory to each other. Without considering entire facts, evidence circumstances of the case learned trial court passed the impugning summoning order dated 26.04.2018 and thereafter learned Revisional Court also without applying judicial mind, arbitrarily dismissed the Criminal Revision by passing the impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2019. Thus both the orders are perverse and passed without taking into account the facts and circumstances, thus the impugned judgment and orders are liable to be quashed and this petition is liable to be allowed.
6. Per contra learned A.G.A. vehemently contented that in the complaint case victim herself deposed that petitioners have forcibly committed rape on her and the other witnesses who had been examined on behalf of victim had given the evidence in the attending circumstances. The both petitioners were seen by the complaints witnesses when they were fleeing from the house of complainant. He further contented that learned magistrate, after analyzing the facts, evidences given by the witnesses, passed the impugned summoning order dated 26.04.2018. He further contented that the summoning order was assailed in criminal revision and learned revisional court also found that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Magistrate Court and that order has been passed after considering entire facts and evidences available on record. It is also observed by revision Court that during trial there is ample opportunity to parties to put their case and produce their evidence in their favor and consequently that revision has been dismissed. He further contented that there is no substance and no compelling circumstances in the present matter for intervention of this court by way of petition under section 482 of CrPC. He further submits that by way of filing this petition, petitioner has held up the proceedings of the case pending before the trial court, thus there is no ground to allow this petition and the same is devoid of merits and is liable to the dismissed.
7. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. It is evident from record that application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC was treated complaint and in proceedings of the complaint case, statement of the victim was recorded under Section 200 CrPC while the statement of her witnesses were recorded under section 202 of CrPC and after considering the entire facts, circumstances and evidence, learned trial court found that there is a prima facie case to proceed. Consequently summoned the accused persons/ petitioners for the offence under Section 376-D of the I.P.C.
9. It is notable that meticulous consideration of the statement of witnesses is not permissible under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage there is no occasion to look into the question whether the charge ultimately can be substantiated or not, since that would be subject matter of trial.
10. In view of the law propounded by the Honble Apex Court in cases such as Bhushan Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (AIR 2012 SC 1747), Nupur Talwar Vs. CBI (AIR 2012 SC 921), Dy. Chief Controller Vs. Roshanlal Agarwal (AIR 2003 SC 1900), and Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs. State of W.B. (AIR 2000 SC 522), it can be safely concluded that in determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons. There is no legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons. The process issued to accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate had not passed a speaking order. Section 204 CrPC does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of summons.
11. In the case of Gambhirsinh R. Dekare Vs. Fhalgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel, AIR 2013 SC 1950 it is held that at the stage of taking cognizance of offences in a complaint case, it is impermissible to go into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint and one has to proceed on a footing that the allegations made are true.
12. At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. (v) Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd Vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401 (vi) Muskan Vs. Ishaan Khan 2025 SCC Online SC 2355.
13. From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.
14. The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence.
15. However, Honble Apex Court in G.Sagar Suri and others Versus State of U.P. and others (2002) SCC page 636 has cautioned the Court while exercising the inherent power in following words:
8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with a great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal Court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
16. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., thus Court has been invested with extraordinary power to prevent abuse of process of the Court and otherwise to secure the ends of justice. That power has to be exercised with great care and caution. Describing the ambit and scope of Section 482, following principles have been laid down by Honble Apex Court in AIR 1992 SC 604: State of Haryana and others versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and others :
“108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such powers should be exercised.
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.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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.
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.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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.
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.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (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 concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide 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.”
17. Here it is expedient to mention that at the stage of summoning order, the procedure is given in Criminal Procedure Code. Conjoint reading of the Section 200, 202, 203 and 204 of the Cr.P.C. prescribes that if prima facie case is found by the court on the basis of evidence available on the record, then it will proceed with the case and if prima facie no case is found then after recording reason, may dismiss the complaint.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioners indicated several litigations pending before the parties concerned and argued that to take revenge from the petitioners, a civil matter has been given a color of criminality. But here it is to be clarified that if criminal case is made out from the evidence produced by the complainant then nowhere it is barred that criminal case and civil case cannot run concurrently.
19. Learned counsel for petitioners emphasized that the impugned criminal case is based on the back drop of the civil litigation and for this reason he raises contention, but here it is also noticeable that victim who is the sufferer of the alleged crime has given statement on oath before the court and in her deposition it is specifically mentioned that petitioners had committed forcibly rape on her. One thing is also pertinent to mention that testimony of the other witnesses who had given the evidence regarding attending circumstances cannot be said that from their testimony statement of the victim is not corroborated.
20. From the perusal of the impugned order, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The entire matter pertains to the factual aspect, which cannot be ascertained under Section 482 Cr.P.C..
21. The plea taken by learned counsel appearing for petitioners may be defence of the petitioners, which may be taken only at the appropriate stage, when both the parties would be affording a sufficient opportunity to adduce their evidence in their favour respectively. But at the stage of summoning order defence plea cannot be taken into account.
22. Simultaneously it is also to be noted that in revisional jurisdiction of criminal case only three points have to be considered i.e. correctness, legality and propriety of finding.
23. In view of that learned revisional court has observed that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order passed by the Magistrate. Apart from this at this stage learned counsel for petitioners cannot indicate that what is the compelling reasons and circumstances to invoke the provision under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. as there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned order passed by both the Courts, therefore, no case is made out by the applicant for interference by this Court exercising power under Section 482 CrPC for the relief claimed.
24. Accordingly, this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the applicant is dismissed.
(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.)
July 21, 2026
Arvind
Â
Â
