SHIVAM @ SUGAM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31414 of 2023

Shivam @ Sugam And Another
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                    :   Pankaj Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)               :   G.A., Nirbhay Singh

Court No. - 76
                       HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
Virendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State, Sri Sandeep Kumar
Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Nirbhay Singh, learned counsel
for opposite party no. 2/ complainant and perused the material brought on
record.

3. Vakalatnama of Sri Nirbhay Singh is not on record, despite his name is
being printed in the cause list. IA status of Web Portal shows that same has
been filed in the office on 22.11.2023. Office to trace out the same and place
it on record and made a note in the order sheet about it.

4. Counter affidavit dated 20.1.2024 filed by the State is on record.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not propose to file
any rejoinder affidavit to the said counter affidavit.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has not been served
with any counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2. Neither the
record, nor IA status of website shows regarding filing of any counter
affidavit by opposite party no. 2. The Court proceeds to hear the matter.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicants Shivam @ Sugam and Ram Kishor with the prayer to allow this
application and quash the entire proceeding as well as summoning order
dated 30.6.2023 in Compliant Case No. 7512 of 2023 (Santosh Verma Vs.
Shivam @ Sugam), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 379 I.P.C., Police
Station Sidhpura, District Kasganj pending in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kasganj with a further prayer that proceeding of the aforesaid
case be stayed during the pendency of the present application.
                                                             A482 No. 31414 of 2023
                                  2


4. The matter was initially taken up on 21.9.2023 and the following order
was passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court;

          "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned
          A.G.A. for the State.

          2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to
          quash the summoning order dated 30.06.2023 as well as the
          entire proceedings of Case No. 7512 of 2023 (Santosh Verma
          Vs. Shivam@Sugam and another), under Sections- 452, 323,
          504, 506, 379 I.P.C., Police Station- Sidhpura, District-
          Kasganj, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
          Kasganj.
          3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant
          No. 1 has filed complaint case against opposite party No. 2
          and some other persons on 31.01.2022, in which summoning
          order has been issued on 16.07.2022. He next submitted that
          opposite party No. 2 has challenged the same by filing
          Application U/s 482 No. 35520 of 2022, which was disposed
          of vide order dated 13.12.2022 with direction for mediation.
          He next submitted that opposite party No. 2 has not
          participated in the mediation proceeding and has filed
          present criminal present proceeding against the applicants to
          pressurize them to withdraw earlier proceeding initiated
          against opposite party No. 2. He next submitted that
          summoning order dated 30.06.2023 as well as present
          criminal proceeding are bad and liable to be set aside.
          4. Matter requires consideration.
          5. Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted
          by learned A.G.A.
          6. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable within eight
          weeks.
          7. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party
          no. 2 may file their counter affidavits within six weeks.
          Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
          8. List this case on 22.11.2023.
          9. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the
                                                              A482 No. 31414 of 2023
                                  3


           aforesaid case shall remain stayed against the applicant."

5. The facts in the present case are that a complaint dated 23.5.2023 was
filed by Santosh Verma/ opposite party no. 2 against the applicants for the
offences under Sections 323, 392, 427, 452, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. alleging
therein that on 16.5.2023 at about 10.00 A.M., the accused applicants
forcibly entered the house and started hurling abuses. On making objection,
they started assaulting him and also broke the house hold articles. During
this incident, Shivam @ Sugam looted a gold chain from the neck of the
complainant and Ram Kishor took away Rs. 5300/- kept in almirah. On
making hue and cry, Sagar Verma, Anmol and other villagers came on the
spot and saw the incident and saved him. Seeing the people coming, the
accused ran away giving threats to complainant. The complainant went to
police station concerned to lodge the report but the same was not lodged and
then he sent an application by registered post to the Superintendent of Police
concerned, on which, when no report was lodged, he, thus, filed a complaint
against the accused persons to be summoned for the offence punishable
under Sections 323, 392, 427, 452, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. On the said
complaint, the statement of Santosh Verma was recorded under Section 200
Cr.P.C. and the statements of his witnesses namely, Anmol as P.W.-1 and
Sagar Varma as P.W.-2 were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The court
of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj vide order dated 30.6.2023
summoned the accused applicants for the offence under Sections 452, 323,
504, 506, 379 I.P.C. Hence, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been
filed with prayers as aforesaid.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the complainant/
opposite party no. 2 was mediator of the marriage of Shivam @ Sugam with
Shivani d/o Pramod Kumar. It has further been submitted that the said
marriage was solemnized on 16.2.2021, after which Smt. Shivani went to her
maternal house from where she eloped with one Dhiraj Kumar on
03.03.2021. It is further submitted that when applicant no. 1 came to know
about the said incident, he filed a complainant on 31.1.2022 against Santosh
Verma/ opposite party no. 2, Dhiraj Kumar, Shivani, Pramod Kumar and
Anoop for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 420, 406 I.P.C. In
said complaint, the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of
his witnesses namely, Ranu as P.W.-1 and Amir as P.W.-2 were recorded,
after which vide order dated 16.7.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kasganj, the accused were summoned for the offences under Sections 452,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. to face trial. It is further submitted that the said accused
persons then challenged the proceedings of the said case before this Court by
way of an Application u/s 482 No. 35520 of 2022, Santosh and 4 others Vs.
State of U.P. in which vide order dated 13.12.2022, the case was referred to
mediation center. The said order has been annexed as annexure-8 to the
affidavit, which reads as under;

           "Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas
                                                     A482 No. 31414 of 2023
                         4


Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint
Case No. 176 of 2022, Shivam @ Sugam Verma v. Santosh
and others, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police
Station Sidhpura, District Kasganj pending in the Court of
the Chef Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj as well as the
summoning order dated 16.07.2022 passed in the said case.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant
no. 3 is married to the opposite party no. 2. The dispute
between the parties is a matrimonial dispute, and in case the
matter is referred for mediation, the parties may get an
opportunity to settle their dispute amicably.
The Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma and Others Vs.
State of U.P. and another, reported in 2017 AIR (SC) 3869,
has issued certain directions regarding matrimonial disputes.
Paragraph 19 of the judgement, which contains the
directions so issued, is reproduced hereunder:-
"19. Thus, after careful consideration of the whole issue, we
consider it fit to give following directions :-
(i) (a) In every district one or more Family Welfare
Committees be constituted by the District Legal Services
Authorities preferably comprising of three members. The
constitution and working of such committees may be
reviewed from time to time and at least once in a year by the
District and Sessions Judge of the district who is also the
Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority.
(b) The Committees may be constituted out of para legal
volunteers/ social workers/ retired persons/ wives of working
officers/ other citizens who may be found suitable and
willing.
(c) The Committee members will not be called as witnesses.
(d) Every complaint under Section 498A received by the
police or the Magistrate be referred to and looked into by
such committee. Such committee may have interaction with
                                                     A482 No. 31414 of 2023
                        5


the parties personally or by means of telephone or any other
mode of communication including electronic communication.


(e) Report of such committee be given to the Authority by
whom the complaint is referred to it latest within one month
from the date of receipt of complaint.
(f) The committee may give its brief report about the factual
aspects and its opinion in the matter.
(g) Till report of the committee is received, no arrest should
normally be effected.
(h) The report may be then considered by the Investigating
Officer or the Magistrate on its own merit.
(i) Members of the committee may be given such basic
minimum training as may be considered necessary by the
Legal Services Authority from time to time.
(j) The Members of the committee may be given such
honorarium as may be considered viable.
(k) It will be open to the District and Sessions Judge to utilize
the cost fund wherever considered necessary and proper.
(ii) Complaints under Section 498A and other connected
offences may be investigated only by a designated
Investigating Officer of the area. Such designations may be
made within one month from today. Such designated officer
may be required to undergo training for such duration (not
less than one week) as may be considered appropriate. The
training may be completed within four months from today;
(iii) In cases where a settlement is reached, it will be open to
the District and Sessions Judge or any other senior Judicial
Officer nominated by him in the district to dispose of the
proceedings including closing of the criminal case if dispute
primarily relates to matrimonial discord;
(iv) If a bail application is filed with at least one clear day's
notice to the Public Prosecutor/ complainant, the same may
be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of
disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial
                                                     A482 No. 31414 of 2023
                         6


of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children
can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in dealing
with bail matters, individual roles, prima facie truth of the
allegations, requirement of further arrest/ custody and
interest of justice must be carefully weighed;
(v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India
impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice
should not be a routine;
(vi) It will be open to the District Judge or a designated
senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club
all connected cases between the parties arising out of
matrimonial disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the
Court to whom all such cases are entrusted; and
(vii) Personal appearance of all family members and
particularly outstation members may not be required and the
trial court ought to grant exemption from personal
appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing
without adversely affecting progress of the trial.
(viii) These directions will not apply to the offences involving
tangible physical injuries or death."
In view of the aforesaid, no useful purpose would be served
by keeping the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending
before this Court. The Court below is directed to refer the
parties to the committee constituted for mediation at District
concerned within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this order.
The mediation centre shall submit its report within one
month from the date of receipt of the case before the learned
Magistrate.
For a period of three months from today or till the
submission of the report by the mediation centre, no coercive
action shall be taken against the applicants. If bail
application is filed by the applicants, the same shall be
decided according to the direction contained in Rajesh
Sharma (supra).
                                                                A482 No. 31414 of 2023
                                   7


           It is however provided that in case the mediation fails, the
           applicants shall be at liberty to file a fresh application under
           Section 482 Cr.P.C.
           With the aforesaid observations, the present application
           stands disposed of."

7. It is submitted that no steps were taken by the applicants therein and thus,
mediation in the matter did not proceed further. Subsequently, the present
complaint dated 23.5.2023 has been filed against the applicants as a result of
counterblast to the said matter in order to harass the applicants. It is further
submitted that reading of the complaint and the statements of the
complainant and the witnesses goes to show that no motive whatsoever has
been stated in the complaint. The present complaint has been filed as a
counterblast to the complaint dated 31.3.2022 by the applicant no. 1 against
opposite party no. 2 and 4 others in which they were summoned vide order
dated 16.7.2022 to face trial. They had approached this court and order dated
13.12.2022 was passed in the petition but they did not comply with the said
order. It is submitted by pointing out of paragraph no. 10 of the affidavit in
support of the present application that this is a no injury case. It is further
submitted that the said paragraph has been replied in paragraph no. 8 of the
counter affidavit filed by the State, which is not denied and reply therein is
that the same is a matter of record hence, needs no reply. Thus, the fact
which transpires is that the allegation of assault on the complainant by the
accused applicants are false and baseless, since this is a no injury case. It has
further been submitted that the other allegations in the present matter have
been exaggerated in order to give colour to the case. Learned counsel has
relied upon para-102 of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State
of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others: 1992 Suppl (1) SCC
335 and has submitted that one of the categories being category no.7 as laid
down by the Apex Court in the said judgement for quashing of the
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are of malafides intentions and
counterblast. Para-102 of the said judgement reads as under:-

"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 and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
                                                        A482 No. 31414 of 2023
                               8


(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.

(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 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."

8. It is submitted that looking to the facts of the matter, the present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for opposite
party no. 2 opposed the prayer for quashing and submitted that reading of the
complaint, statements of complainant and the witnesses and also summoning
order go to show that offence is made out against the applicants, however,
with regards to the complaint lodged previously by the applicant no. 1, the
statement recorded therein and the order of summoning and then the order
dated 13.12.2022 passed in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not disputed by
the said learned counsel.

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
                                                                                              A482 No. 31414 of 2023
                                                                     9


                                    records, it is evident that the applicant no. 1 was married on 16.2.2021, the
                                    complainant / opposite party no. 2 was mediator of the said marriage. The
                                    wife of applicant no. 1 eloped with someone when she went to her maternal
                                    house after marriage. Applicant no. 1 filed a complaint on 31.1.2022 against
                                    his wife, opposite party no. 2 and other family members. The said accused
                                    were summoned by the concerned court. After the said summoning, the
                                    accused therein challenged the proceedings and summoning order before this
                                    Court and the matter was referred to mediation centere. It is the case that the
                                    applicants therein did not proceed further to get the matter settled.
                                    Subsequently, the present complaint has been filed by one of the accused
                                    persons therein who was summoned to face trial, who was also the mediator
                                    of the said marriage. The present case is a no injury case and same appears
                                    to be based on concocted facts and with malafides and the same deserves to
                                    be quashed.

                                    11. In view of the above discussions and the law laid down by the Apex
                                    Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (Supra), the present 482 Cr.P.C.
                                    application stands allowed.

                                    12. The impugned summoning order and the proceedings of the said case are
                                    hereby quashed against the applicants.

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


                                                                                                   (Samit Gopal,J.)
                                    September 29, 2026
                                    Gss




Digitally signed by :-
GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad