Allahabad High Court

MASTRAM AND 2 OTHERSversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed as a prima facie case exists; the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed.

Summary

The applicants filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the summoning order dated 12‑10‑2023 and the entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 491 of 2023, which alleged offences under Sections 376D, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. They contended that the complaint was filed to harass them and to pressure them into withdrawing an earlier FIR against the husband of the complainant, asserting that no prima facie case existed and that the Special Judge had ignored statements and prior enmity. The State argued that the complainant’s statements and the material collected during investigation established a prima facie case against the applicants, and that the trial court had not committed any illegality. The High Court examined the material and, relying on Supreme Court precedents on the exercise of power under Section 482, held that a prima facie case was indeed made out and that factual disputes could not be decided at this stage. Consequently, the Court found no ground to quash the proceedings and dismissed the petition. The application was therefore dismissed, and the criminal case will continue.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when only a prima facie case is established.
Whether the Special Judge erred in summoning the applicants by not considering the complainant’s and witnesses’ statements and alleged prior enmity.

Legislation cited

Cr.P.C. — s. 156(3), 200, 202, 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 376, 376D, 452, 504, 506
POCSO Act — s. 5, 6

Subjects

Section 482
quash criminal proceedings
prima facie case
criminal trial
harassment complaint
enmity
summoning order
IPC offences

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1297 of 2024

Mastram And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Pratap Singh, Ashish Kumar
Chaurasiya, Deepak Singh Patel
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shikha Singh

Court No. - 80
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Chaurasiya, learned Counsel for applicants,
learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. No one is present on behalf
of opposite party no.2.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicants to quash the summoning order dated 12.10.2023 as well as entire
criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 491 of 2023, Vimlesh Kumari
v. Vimlesh @ Vinod and others, under Section 376D, 323, 504 and 506
I.P.C., Police Station Gursahayganj, District Kannauj, pending before the
learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kannauj.

3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants that applicant
no.1 Mastram got a First Information Report registered against the husband
of opposite party no.2 on 01.012.2022, as Case Crime No. 0678 of 2022,
under Sections 452 and 376 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police
Station Gursahayganj, District Kannauj. The Police, after completion of
investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the husband of opposite party no.2
under Section 452 and 376 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act. Thereafter,
mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. regarding the incident dated 31.05.2022 against the applicant
no.1 Mastram, applicant no.2 Naveen and one Ramkaran but the same was
dismissed by the learned Special Judge (DAA), Kannauj on 02.09.2023.
Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. against the applicants but the same dismissed for want of
A482 No. 1297 of 2024
2

prosecution by the learned Trial Court on 14.03.2024. Thereafter, opposite
party no.2 has filed the present complaint against the applicants regarding
the incident dated 10.09.2023 whereas, the applicants have not committed
any such incident.

4. It is further submitted that the present complaint has been filed by the
opposite party no.2 just to harass the applicants and create pressure upon
them to withdraw the First Information Report lodged against the husband of
the opposite party no.2. The complainant got herself examined under Section
200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses Anamika and Chhavinath under Section 202
Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge has not taken into consideration the
statements of complainant and witnesses properly and summoned the
applicants to face trial under Sections 376D, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C.
whereas no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. The learned
Special Judge has not taken into consideration the fact that there is previous
enmity in between the applicants and opposite party no.2 and the opposite
party no.2 has concealed the fact, therefore, the summoning order as well as
entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the
allegations made in the complaint, the statements of the complainant and
witnesses and the material collected during the course of investigation,
prima facie, offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such,
entire proceedings cannot be quashed. The learned Trial Court has not
committed any illegality in passing the impugned summoning order,
therefore, the present application may be dismissed.

6. As per the fact of this case, opposite party no.2 has filed a complaint
against the applicants regarding the incident dated 10.09.2023. The
complainant got herself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses
Anamika and Chhavinath under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned
Special Judge has summoned the applicants to face trial under Sections
376D, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The learned Special Judge has not taken into
consideration the fact as stated in the complaint and the statement of
complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses under Section 202
Cr.P.C.
A482 No. 1297 of 2024
3

7. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of
the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the
applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question
of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power
conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to
be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P.
Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992
SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd.
Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed
defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any
ground to quash the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing
the same is hereby refused.

9. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
March 19, 2026
Vijay

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…