Allahabad High Court
MAHAVEERversusState of U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that the complaint was not substantiated due to contradictory witness statements and lack of evidence, and therefore the proceedings were quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Summary
The applicant Mahaveer filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the criminal complaint (Case No. 17874 of 2023) filed by Om Prakash under IPC sections 323, 427, 452 and 506. The applicant alleged that the complaint was fabricated, that there was no evidence, and that the statements of the complainant and two witnesses (PW‑1 and PW‑2) were contradictory. The court examined the statements recorded under Section 200 of the CrPC and found that the two witnesses gave inconsistent accounts of who arrived at the scene first, indicating a material inconsistency. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, the court concluded that the alleged incident was not substantiated. Consequently, the High Court allowed the Section 482 application and quashed the criminal proceedings and the summoning order dated 16‑10‑2023.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC when the complaint is not supported by evidence and witness statements are contradictory.
- Whether the summoning order dated 16‑10‑2023 is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 200, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 427, 452, 506
Subjects
- Section 482
- quash of criminal proceedings
- witness inconsistency
- lack of evidence
- IPC offences
- complaint case
- summoning order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14605 of 2024
Mahaveer
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Fareed Uddin
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Manvendra Singh
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.
2. The instant application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 has been preferred seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No.17874 of 2023, (Om Prakash vs. Mahaveer), under
Sections 323, 427, 452 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station
Ghazipur, District Fatehpur as well as summoning order dated 16.10.2023
passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.2, Fatehpur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, entire prosecution story is
concocted and without any evidence and the facts narrated in the complaint
are totally false and baseless. There are variations in the statements of the
complainant recorded under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 and other witnesses PW-1 and PW-2. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the said
complaint and the impugned summoning order dated 16.10.2023 is illegal,
arbitrary and liable to be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 has opposed
the instant application on the ground that, the alleged incident has been
supported by the complainant and other two witnesses and the accused-
applicant has also been enlarged on bail by the concerned trial Court,
therefore, the present application moved under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not maintainable and the same is liable to be
A482 No. 14605 of 2024
2
dismissed.
5. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and having perused
the record, it is evident that, the alleged incident is stated to have taken place
in the presence of the daughter of the complainant and another witness,
namely, Shiv Singh. It has been alleged by complainant that, the accused-
applicant Mahaveer has physically assaulted the complainant's side and on
hearing hue and cry, the daughter of the complainant also arrived at the spot,
but the complainant himself, while getting his statement recorded under
Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, did not mention the name
of another witness, namely, Shiv Singh. However, the another witness Shiv
Singh has stated that, he arrived first on the spot and the daughter of the
complainant arrived later, wherein the daughter of the complainant stated
that, she arrived on the spot first and thereafter, the said Shiv Singh arrived,
therefore, there is a variation and contradiction in the statements of two
witnesses PW- 1 and PW- 2. Under such circumstances, the events and facts,
as stated in the complaint and the corroboration of PWs, the occurrence of
alleged incident is not substantiated or supported by the evidence, as has
been narrated in the complaint. Hence, the instant application under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is liable to be allowed.
6. Accordingly, the instant application under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 stands allowed and proceedings in question are
hereby quashed and set aside.
May 6, 2026
Gurpreet Singh
(Harvir Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
GURPREET SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…