AHMAD ALI QURAISHI AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
[2020] 1 S.C.R. 170, Supreme Court of India, 2020
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
AHMAD ALI QURAISHI AND ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2020)
JANUARY 30, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Inherent power
of High Court – Appellants-accused and respondent no.2-
complainant belong to same family and are neighbours – In 2015,
father of the accused filed suit against the complainant for partition
of properties which led to several altercations among the parties –
On 29.08.16, complainant filed application u/s.156(3), CrPC
alleging that on 19.07.16 when his daughters had gone to public
hand pump outside their house for fetching water, the accused
persons indulged in indecent gestures towards them and had also
beaten them – It was further alleged that on the same day, the accused
persons entered the house of complainant and started beating him
and his daughters – Application rejected – Another complaint was
filed levelling the same allegations made in earlier application –
Sessions Judge summoned the appellants – Appellants filed
application u/s.482, CrPC – Dismissed – On appeal, held: Dispute
regarding property between complainant and father of the appellant
was pending much before the alleged incident dtd. 19.07.16 – Fact
that on the same date of the incident, the Police visited the spot and
drew proceeding u/ss.151, 107 & 116 CrPC against both the parties
and they were required to maintain peace is a clear pointer
to the
nature of quarrel between them – It was more than six weeks
thereafter that for the first time an application u/s.156(3), CrPC
was filed by the complainant against the accused – Further, Sessions
Judge in his summoning order did not believe the second incident
in the complaint alleging that the appellants, their father and other
accused entered into the house and started beating the complainant
and his daughters – Non believing on one part of the alleged incident
in the complaint throws shadow of doubt on the earlier part of the
incident – On facts, criminal proceedings were initiated by
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 170
170
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
171
complainant with an ulterior motive due to personal grudge – High
Court although noticed the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhajan
Lal case but did not examine the facts as to whether present is a
case which falls in any of the category enumerated therein – Present
case clearly falls in category VII of Bhajan Lal’s case – High Court
failed to exercise jurisdiction u/s.482, CrPC – Criminal proceedings
against the appellants are quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.323,
354, 452, 504, 506 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012– s.4, 7 & 8.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The present is a case where parties are related
and are neighbours. Civil dispute regarding property is going on
between father of the accused and the complainant. It is clear
that dispute regarding property between complainant and father
of the appellant is pending much before the alleged incident dated
19.07.16. The fact that on the same date of the incident Police
visited the spot and has drawn proceeding under Section 151,
107, 116 Cr.P.C. against both the parties and both the parties
were required to maintain peace is a clear pointer to the nature
of quarrel between the parties. It was more than six weeks
thereafter that for the first time an application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant against the accused in the
court of Session Judge. One more fact which transpire from order
of Session Judge summoning the accused need to be noted. The
complaint against the appellant and other accused refers to two
incidents of 19.07.2016. One incident which took place near the
Public hand pump outside the house of complainant and second,
on the same day in the house of the complainant where he alleged
that the appellants, their father and other accused entered into
the house and started beating the complainant and his daughters.
Sessions Judge  in his summonig order did not believe the  second
incident as alleged in the complaint. Non believing on one part of
the incident as alleged in the complaint by the Court clearly throws
a shadow of doubt on the earlier part of the incident as alleged.
The session judge in the impugned judgment has not taken note
of the Civil Suit pending between the parties. [Paras 20-22]
[183-E-H; 184-A-B]
AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
1.3 Present is a case where criminal proceedings have been
initiated by complainant with an ulterior motive due to private
and personal grudge. The High Court although noticed the
judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and others versus
Bhajan Lal and others in the impugned judgment but did not
examine the facts of the case as to whether present is a case
which falls in any of the category as enumerated in Bhajan Lal’s
case. The present case clearly falls in category VII of Bhajan
Lal’s case and the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing the criminal proceeding initiated
by the complaint. In permitting Criminal proceedings against the
appellant shall be permitting a criminal proceeding which has been
maliciously instituted with ulterior motives, permitting such
criminal proceeding to go on is nothing but the abuse of the
procees of the Court which needs to be interfered by this Court.
The criminal proceedings initiated by Complaint Case No.1 of
2017 are quashed.  [Paras 23-25] [184-C-E]
State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others
(1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 ;
Vineet Kumar and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another (2017) 13 SCC 369 : [2017] 6 SCR 922 ; State
of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 :
[1977] 3 SCR 113 ; State of Karnataka v. M.
Devendrappa (2002) 3 SCC 89 : [2002] 1 SCR 275 ;
Sunder Babu v. State of T.N. (2009) 14
SCC 244 : [2009]
3 SCR 326 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259
relied on
Para 10
[2017] 6 SCR 922
relied on
Para 11
[1977] 3 SCR 113
relied on
Para 12
[2002] 1 SCR 275
relied on
Para13
[2009] 3 SCR 326
relied on
Para 15
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
173
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 138 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Application u/s 482 No. 5890 of 2018.
S. K. Verma, Rajan Kumar Chaurasia, Divyansh Rai and Sandeep
Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.
Garvesh Kabra, Surjeet Singh, Anubhav T. Mishra, Lagnesh
Mishra and V. N. Raghupathy, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the order of the High
Court dated 21.02.2018 by which the application under Section 482 CrPC
filed by the appellants accused to quash the proceedings of Complaint
Case No.1 of 2017 has been rejected. Aggrieved by the order of the
High Court, this appeal has been filed.
2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted to decide this
appeal are: -
(i)
The appellants accused and the respondent No.2 complainant
belongs to same family and are neighbours. The father of
the accused Anwarul Haq has filed O.S.No.744/2015 against
the complainant in the court of Civil judge (Junior Division)
with regard to partition of properties which suit is still pending.
Suit between the parties led to several altercations among
the parties.
(ii)
On 19.07.2016, a quarrel took between the parties. The police
went on the spot of incident on 19.07.2016 itself and initiated
proceedings under Section 151,107 and 116 Cr.P.C.
Proceedings were drawn under Cr.P.C. against both the
parties
to maintain peace at the spot.
 (iii) On 29.08.2016, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was filed by the complainant Sajjad Quraishi against the
accused Ahmad Ali Quraishi, and Liyakar Ali Quraishi as
well as their father Anwarul Haq and their three other
brothers referring to incident dated 19.07.2016 at about 06:00
AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
PM. Allegation in the complaint was that two daughters of
complainant Firdaus Bano and Gulishta Bano had gone to
public hand pump outside the house of the complainant for
fetching water at that time Ahmad Ali and Liyakat Ali
accused indulge in indecent gestures towards them and
started pressing their breasts. The daughter Firdaus Bano
sustained nail injuries. The girls were also beaten. On alarm
being raised the complainant, his wife and others reached
the spot and intervened.
(iv) It was further alleged that on the same day, Anwarul Haq,
the accused and their brothers with common intentions
forcibly entered the house of complainant and hurld filthy
abuses and starting beating the daughters inside the house.
Application further alleged that applicant gave information
about the incident but neither application was taken nor
medical got conducted. Application was also sent through
Registered Post to Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, D.G.P.,
Lucknow and National Human Right Commission, New
Delhi. In the application, offence alleged against accused
were under Section 323, 354, 504, 506, 452 IPC and Section
4 of POSCO Act.
(v)
On the application, Misc. Case No.14 of 2016 was registered.
The learned Additional District/Sessions Judge (POSCO Act)
considered the application of complainant and by order dated
14.10.2016 rejected the application holding that there are no
sufficient grounds to register the case against the
appellants.
Learned Sessions Judge also noticed that according to report
of the Police Station proceeding under Sections 151, 107 and
116 Cr.P.C. has been initiated in respect of the said incident.
(vi) Complainant filed a Criminal Revision in the High court. The
High Court vide its judgment dated 22.11.2016 did not interfere
with the order rejecting the application, however, it observed
that applicant has an alternative remedy by way of filing an
appropriate application before the concerned Court as per
provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.
(vii) The application having already sent to the National Human
Rights Commission, On the instruction of National Human
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
175
Rights Commission, the Superintendent of Police directed
the complaint to be enquired by letter dated 07.11.2016
addressed to the C.O.(City), Jaunpur to enquire the
complaint. The C.O. (City), Jaunpur conducted the enquiry,
recorded the statements of various persons including the
daughters of complainant Firdaus Bano and Gulishtan Bano
as well as the accused and submitted the report on
11.12.2016 opining that allegations labelled by the complainant
have not been proved in the enquiry.
(viii) The complainant thereafter filed a complaint Case No.1 of
2017 dated 04.10.2017 repeating the same allegations against
the appellants and other accused which were made in his
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
(ix) The Learned Sessions Judge by order dated 19.12.2017
summoned the appellants under Section 323, 353, 504, 506
IPC and Section 7/8 POSCO Act. The appellant filed an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court
praying for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case
No.1 of 2017 as well as the summoning order. The application
has been dismissed by the High Court by the impugned
judgment dated 21.02.2018 aggrieved against which judgment
this appeal has been filed.
3.  Learned Counsel for the appellant in support of his case submits
that dispute regarding property between the father of the appellant and
the complainant is going on with regard to which Civil Suit No.744 of
2015, Anwarul Haq versus Sajjad Ali is pending in the court of Civil
Judge(Junior Division). To put pressure on the appellant and to settle the
property dispute pending in the court of Civil Judge, the complainants
have filed frivolous complaints against the appellants and other family
members before the Human Rights Commission, Police Authorities as
well as in the Court of Sessions Judge.
4. Sessions Judge had already rejected his application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 29.08.2016. The complaint sent by the
complainant to the Human Rights Commission resulted in enquiry by
Deputy Superintendent of Police and report was submitted that no such
incident took place as alleged. In spite of the rejection of the application
and nothing having been found against the appellant in the enquiry, the
AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
complaint Case No.1 of 2017 has been filed. The complaint by the
complainant is nothing but abuse of the process of Court which has been
actuated to settle personal score and to put pressure on the appellants
and his father to settle in the property dispute.
5. It is submitted that High Court failed to consider the sequence
of events and fact situation of the present case in which the complaint
deserved to be quashed. It is submitted that the complaint is manifestly
attended with mala fide and has been maliciously instituted with ulterior
motives.
6. It is further submitted that for the same incident police has
already initiated proceedings under Section 151, 107,115 Cr.P.C. against
both the parties and they have been asked to maintain the peace. The
incident as alleged against the appellant is imaginary and completely
false.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant has supported the order
of the High Court and submits that High Court has rightly refused to
quash the proceedings. It is submitted that High Court in exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. shall not examine the question as
to whether the allegations made against the appellant in the complaint
are true or false nor High Court will assess the evidence at this stage.
8. A Counter Affidavit has also been filed by the State of Uttar
Pradesh bringing on record the application filed by complainant under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 29.08.2016 as well
as the enquiry report
dated 11.12.2016 and submitted to Superintendent of Police, Jaupur as
Annexure-CA/2.
9. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
10. Before we enter into facts of the present case and submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to look into
scope and ambit of Inherent Jurisdiction which is exercised by the High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court had occasion to consider
the scope and jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court in State of
Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 suppl. (1)
SCC 335, had elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section
482 Cr.P.C./ Article 226 of the Constitution in the context of quashing
the criminal proceedings. In paragraph 102, this Court enumerated seven
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
177
categories of cases where power can be exercised under Article 226/
Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court for quashing the criminal
Proceedings. Paragraph 102 is as follows: -
“102. 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 adn inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
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 FIR 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 FIR 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.
AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
(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 ther 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/o where there is 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.”
11. This Court in Vineet Kumar and others versus State of Uttar
Pradesh and another, (2017) 13 SCC 369, had considered the
jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the above case
also, the Additional Civil Judicial Magistrate had summoned the accused
for offence under Section 452, 376, and 323 IPC and the Criminal Revision
against the said order was dismissed by the District Judge.
12.This Court time and again has examined the scope of jurisdiction
of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and laid down several
principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of the High
Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of
Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, held that the High
Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that
allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of
the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to
be quashed. In para 7 of the judgment, the following has been stated:
(SCC p. 703)
“7. … In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High
Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would
be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of
justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The
saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and
criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
179
purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be
permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or
persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a
lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which
the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify
the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of
justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere
law though justice has got to be administered according to
laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for
making these observations is that without a proper realisation
of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to
save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice,
between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to
appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.”
13. A three-Judge Bench in State of Karnataka v. M.
Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89, had the occasion to consider the
ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. By analysing the scope of Section 482
Cr.P.C., this Court laid down that authority of the Court exists for
advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority
so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent abuse. It
further held that Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it
finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of
court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends
of justice. The
following was laid down in para 6: (SCC p. 94)
“6. … All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the
absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution,
all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a
wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando
lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo
res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything
it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising
powers under the section, the court does not function as a court
of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though
wide 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. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae
to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which
alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement
AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as
to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It
would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action
which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice.
In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any
proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to
abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings
would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of
fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible
to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has
alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations
are accepted in toto.”
14. Further in para 8 the following was stated: (Devendrappa
case, SCC p. 95)
“8. … Judicial process should not be an instrument of
oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect
and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant
facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process,
lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant
to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same
time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to
short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The
scope of exercise of power under Section
482 of the Code and
the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its
power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice
were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal.”
15. In Sunder Babu v. State of T.N., (2009) 14 SCC 244, this
Court was considering the challenge to the order of the Madras High
Court where application was under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal
proceedings under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. It was contended before this Court that the
complaint filed was nothing but an abuse of the process of law and
allegations were unfounded. The prosecuting agency contested the
petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. taking the stand that a bare perusal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
181
of the complaint discloses commission of alleged offences and, therefore,
it is not a case which needed to be allowed. The High Court accepted
the case of the prosecution and dismissed the application. This Court
referred to the judgment in Bhajan Lal’s case and held that the case
fell within Category 7. The Apex Court relying on Category 7 has held
that the application under Section 482 deserved to be allowed and it
quashed the proceedings.
16. After considering the earlier several judgments of this Court
including the case of  State of Haryana versus Bhajan lal (supra),
in Vineet Kumar (supra), this Court laid down following in
paragraph 41: -
“41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482
CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice.
In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a
person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the
attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a
prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as
illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot
be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or
harassment. When there are materials to indicate that a criminal
proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court
will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482
CrPC to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated
in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following
effect: (SCC p. 379, para 102)
“102. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide 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.”
Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present
case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, but did not advert to the relevant
facts of the present case, materials on which final report was
submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present
AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
is a fit case where the High Court ought to have exercised its
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal
proceedings.”
17. Now, when we examine the facts of the present case in light
of the ratio as laid down by this Court in above noted cases, it is clear
that the present is a case where parties are related and are neighbours.
Civil dispute regarding property is going on between father of the accused
and the complainant. The incident which is basis for summoning of
appellant is dated 19.07.2016 which is alleged to have taken place in
front of the house of the complainant. The materials on record do indicate
that quarrel took place between the parties on 19.07.2016 and police
visited the spot and initiated proceedings under Section 151, 107 and 116
Cr.P.C.. The state has brought on the record the copy of the enquiry
report dated 11.12.2016 of the CO, City, in which enquiry report, following
was stated: -
“...It was found form entire enquiry that there was dispute between
applicant Shri Sajjad Quraishi and opposite party Anwarul Haq
over constructing drain regarding which dispute started between
both the parties on 19.07.2016. On receiving information of dispute
at Police Station Kotwali, the then SHO SI Shri hari Prakash
Yadav conducted proceeding under Sections 151, 107,116 CrPC
on 20.07.2016 on both the parties to maintain peace tranquillity.
During enquiry, perused the complaint dated 03.08.2016
filed by
the applicant before the Hon’ble Commission and found that the
applicant filed complaint dated 29.08.2016 of the same charges u/
s 156(3) CrPC before the Hon’ble Court of Special Judge(POCSO
Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Jaunpur in which the
Hon’ble Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Session
Judge, Court No.1, Jaunpur, as per its endorsement order dated
14.10.2016 has stated that in the entire facts and circumstances
of the said case, sufficient grounds to register the case are not
available. Statements of other witnesses recorded during enquiry
and nearby people were interrogated whereupon eye witnesses
stated the fact of the dispute between applicant Sajjad Qureshi
and opposite party Anwar Ali over the drain and denying the
allegations levelled by the applicant in his application, fact of
opposite party Ahmed Ali and Liyakat Ali sons of Anwar doing
dirty/indecent act/deed or manhandling whatsoever with the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
183
daughters of applicant has not come to light. During enquiry,
applicant failed to submit oral/documentary evidence whatsoever.
Other allegations levelled by the applicant have not been proved
from the enquiry. Peace and tranquillity are prevailing at the spot,
yet SHO of Kotwali is directed to ensure peace and tranquillity
by keeping vigil on the parties.
Report is submitted for kind perusal.”
18. We have taken note of the above report only to take the
sequence of the event and not as a substantive piece of evidence. On
the same allegations, the complainant has filed the application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was rejected by Sessions Judge by an
order dated 14.10.2016, holding that no sufficient grounds have been
made to register a complaint against the appellant.
19. In the Criminal Revision filed against the said order of the
Session Judge, this Court did not interfere with the rejection of an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., however, observed that the
complainant has remedy to file appropriate application. The complainant
thereafter had filed Complaint No.1 of 2017. It is true that rejection of
an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in no manner preclude a
complainant to file a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
20. From the sequence of the events as noticed above, it is clear
that dispute regarding property between complainant and father of the
appellant is pending much before the alleged incident dated 19.07.2016.
The fact that
on the same date of the incident Police visited the spot and
has drawn proceeding under Section 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C. against both
the parties and both the parties were required to maintain peace is a
clear pointer to the nature of quarrel between the parties. It was more
than six weeks thereafter that for the first time an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant against the accused
in the court of Session Judge.
21. One more fact which transpire from order of Session Judge
summoning the accused need to be noted. As noted above, the complaint
against the appellant and other accused refers to two incidents of
19.07.2016. One incident which took place near the Public hand pump
outside the house of complainant and second, on the same day in the
house of the complainant where he alleged that the appellants, their
father and other accused entered into the house and started beating the
AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
complainant and his daughters. Sessions Judge  in his summonig order
did not believe the  second incident as alleged in the complaint. Non
believing on one part of the incident as alleged in the complaint by the
Court clearly throws a shadow of doubt on the earlier part of the incident
as alleged.
22. Learned session judge in the impugned judgment has not taken
note of the Civil Suit pending between the parties.
23. In the facts of present case, we are fully satisfied that present
is a case where criminal proceedings have been initiated by complainant
with an ulterior motive due to private and personal grudge. The High
Court although noticed the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana
and others versus Bhajan Lal and others(supra) in the impugned
judgment but did not examine the facts of the case as to whether present
is a case which falls in any of the category as enumerated in Bhajan
Lal’s case. The present case clearly falls in category VII of Bhajan
Lal’s case and the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. in quashing the criminal proceeding initiated by the complaint.
24. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that
in permitting Criminal proceedings against the appellant shall be permitting
a criminal proceeding which has been maliciously instituted with ulterior
motives, permitting such criminal proceeding to go on is nothing but the
abuse of the procees of the
Court which needs to be interfered by this
Court.
25. In result, the appeal is allowed. The criminal proceedings
initiated by Complaint Case No.1 of 2017, Sajjad Quraishi versus Anwarul
Haq Quraishi are quashed.
Divya Pandey
Appeal allowed.