RISHIPAL AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1988 of 2025

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

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)             :   Mandeep Singh, Sani Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)        :   G.A., Mohammad Zakir

Court No. - 75
                      HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Mandeep Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajay
Singh, learned AGA-I for the State/opposite party no. 1 and records have
been perused.

3. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with
the prayers to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of
Chargesheet dated 22.07.2024, cognizance order dated 08.10.2024 in
Case Crime No. 233 of 2024, u/s 452, 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)5A
SC/ST Act, P.S. Anoopsahar, District Bulandshahar (State Vs. Bholambar
and others) passed by Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Bulandshahar.

4. The records shows that Mr. Mohd. Zakir, learned counsel appears on
behalf of the opposite party no. 2 but his vakalatnama is not on record
despite his name being printed int he cause list.

5. Office to trace it out and place it on record and make a note in the order
sheet about it.

6. Opposite party no. 2 is also not present in person before this Court.

7. Notice has already been served on the opposite party no. 2 which is
sufficient, as has already been stated in the order dated 3.4.2025 passed
by a coordinate bench of this Court.
                                                         A482 No. 1988 of 2025
                               2


8. Counter affidavit dated 25.03.2025 of the State/opposite party no. 1 is
on record.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not proposes to
file any rejoinder affidavit to the same.

10. The matter is ripe for hearing and thus the Court proceeds to hear it.

11. The facts of the case are that a FIR was lodged on 22.6.2024 by the
opposite party no. 2 against the applicants for offences u/s 452, 323, 354,
504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) SC/ST Act with the
allegations that she is a house wife. On 17.6.2024 in the morning when
she was cleaning the drain out side the house, her neighbor Rishipal came
and asked her to clean his drain also on which, she refused to which
Rishipal abused her and by using caste related words stated that this is her
work and she has to do it. In the evening, she told about it to her husband
Gurjeet Singh on which her husband made a complaint about it to
Bholambar, the father of Rishipal, who also got ready to fight with them
and then at about 08:00 pm all the three accused armed with lathi, danda
and sariya by using caste related words came and by abusing entered in
the house of the informant and assaulted her husband and Rishipal with an
ill intention, caught hold of her and threw her on the ground due to which
she became semi nude. On the shouts of the informant and her husband,
Yogendra, Vishnu and other villagers came there and saved them. The
accused then by extending threat ran away. She went to the police station
and gave an application but no action was taken. She has then come with
the application on which action be taken. Her application was addressed
to the Senior Superintendent of Police concern.

12. The investigation in the matter took place and a charge sheet dated
22.07.2024 was filed against accused Rishipal for offences u/s 452, 323,
354, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST Act and against
Bholambar and Rohit for offences u/s 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section
3(2)(5a) of SC/ST Act being charge sheet no. 213 of 2024.

13. The Court of the Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Bulandshahr
summoned the accused applicants for offences u/s 452, 323, 354, 504,
506 IPC and Section 3(2)5A of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act vide order dated
                                                          A482 No. 1988 of 2025
                                3


08.10.2024 to face trial. The present application thus has been filed before
this Court with the prayers as aforesaid.

14. The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that in so far
as the present case is concerned, the same is a no injury case as no
medical examination report of Gurjeet Singh, the husband of the
informant/victim has seen the light of the day. It is further submitted that
the summoning of the two applicants namely, applicant no. 2 Bholambar
and applicant no. 3 Rohit for offence u/s 354 IPC is bad in the eyes of law
in as much as, no charge sheet against them under the said section has
been filed by the police. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the
statement of the first informant recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.
also does not state of any allegation under section 354 IPC against them.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the court concerned
cannot add or subtract any section while taking cognizance or summoning
from that as mentioned in the charge sheet against the accused which is
the law as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujrat
Vs. Girish Radhakirshnan Varde: (2014) 3 SCC 695 (para 14). It is
submitted that in so far as the summoning of the applicant no. 1 Rishipal
is concerned, the same also is with mala fide intention as the allegations
are false and concocted and with mala fide intention since, he is the
neighbor of the opposite party no. 2 and he had given Rs. 1 lakh to her
husband and on demanding back, the present FIR has been lodged. It is
submitted that in so far as the other accused applicants are concerned,
they were not present at the time of the initial dispute as alleged between
applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 but they have been made as an
accused with ulterior motive. It is submitted that thus the present petition
be allowed and the prayers as prayed be granted.

15. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for
quashing and the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and
submits that in so far as the applicant no. 1 is concerned, there are specific
allegations against him after which charge sheet was submitted and he has
been summoned. Even there are allegations against him of enraging the
modesty of the first informant which has been supported by her during
investigation and then charge sheet has been submitted under the said
sections also. It is submitted further that in so far as the other two
                                                                A482 No. 1988 of 2025
                                   4


applicants are concerned, charge sheet against them have not been
submitted u/s 354 IPC but still the court concerned has summoned them
under the said section along with other sections after going through the
records vide order dated 8.10.2024. It is submitted that there are
allegations against the said two accused also and thus even their petition
with the aforesaid prayers be dismissed.

16. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
records, it is evident that in so far as the applicant no. 1 Rishipal is
concerned, he has been summoned by the court concerned under the
offences in which charge sheet has been submitted against him. There are
allegations against him in the present matter which have also been
supported during investigation. In so far as the two other accused
applicants namely, Bholambar and Rohit are concerned, no charge sheet
against them under section 354 IPC has been submitted but still they have
been summoned under the said section also vide order dated 8.10.2024.
The law with regards to summoning of the accused is trite. The judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujrat Vs. Girish
Radhakirshnan Varde (Supra) clearly states that while taking
cognizance the court concerned cannot add or reduce the section. In the
present case, the said two applicants Bholambar and Rohit although have
been charge sheeted but not under section 354 IPC but still they have
been summoned under the said section thus, their summoning under
section 354 IPC is bad in the eyes of law. In so far as the quashing of the
order of cognizance and the entire criminal proceedings is concerned, the
present case does not fall within the four corners of the category of cases
in which powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised for quashing
as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Neeharika
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra : (2021) 19 SCC 401
and it has been observed and held as under:

     ?13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of
     the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja
     Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29 : (1943-44) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945
     PC 18], the following principles of law emerge:

           13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the
                                                       A482 No. 1988 of 2025
                        5


relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into
cognizable offences.

13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences.

13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or
offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report
the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.

13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly
with circumspection, in the ?rarest of rare cases?. (The
rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing
under Section 482 CrPC is not to be confused with the norm
which has been formulated in the context of the death
penalty, as explained previously by this Court.)

13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which
is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR/complaint.

13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage.

13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception
and a rarity than an ordinary rule.

13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State
operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent
power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends
of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482
CrPC.

13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping.
                                                        A482 No. 1988 of 2025
                         6


13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference
would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the
judicial process should not interfere at the stage of
investigation of offences.

13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do
not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims or caprice.

13.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the
offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the
police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits
of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to
complete the investigation. It would be premature to
pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the
complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it
amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after
investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no
substance in the application made by the complainant, the
investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary
before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by
the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known
procedure.

13.13. The power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide, but
conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious.
It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.

13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks fit,
regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-
restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters
laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of
Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and
Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], has the jurisdiction to
quash the FIR/complaint.
                                                                 A482 No. 1988 of 2025
                                   7


           13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
           alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under
           Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the
           allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a
           cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits
           whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not
           and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to
           investigate the allegations in the FIR.?

17. The Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947 has
laid a four-step test for High Courts to follow while considering petitions
for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. It has been held as under:

     ?20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a
     prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested
     in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:?

           (i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused
           is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of
           sterling and impeccable quality?

           (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the
           accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the
           charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is
           sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions
           contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as
           would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn
           the factual basis of the accusations as false.

           (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the
           accused,      has     not      been        refuted   by     the
           prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it
           cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

           (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result
           in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the
                                                                                                  A482 No. 1988 of 2025
                                                                     8


                                              ends of justice?

                                              If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial
                                              conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash
                                              such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it
                                              under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power,
                                              besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious
                                              court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such
                                              a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially
                                              when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the
                                              conviction of the accused. [(See:Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal
                                              Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]?

                                    18. The present application thus, is partly allowed in so far as the
                                    summoning of the applicant no. 2 Bholambar and applicant no. 3 Rohit
                                    are concerned, only with regard to section 354 IPC. The summoning of
                                    the applicant No.2 Bholambar and applicant No.3 Rohit under Section
                                    354 I.P.C. is set aside. However, the trial against them in the other
                                    sections may continue. The application in so far as relates to the applicant
                                    No.1 Rishipal is concerned lacks merit and is dismissed. The trial court
                                    shall proceed in the matter expeditiously without granting undue
                                    adjournment to either of the parties.

                                    19. Pending application(s) if any, stand disposed of.



                                                                                                    (Samit Gopal,J.)
                                    April 1, 2026/Nisha




Digitally signed by :-
nisha kumari
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad