RAMAKANT MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3180 of 2023

Ramakant Mishra
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                         .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)        :   Raj Kumar Kesari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   :   Aravind Kumar Tripathi, Ashutosh Kumar
                                    Mishra, G.A., Hemant Kumar, Sudhanshu
                                    Ranjan, Vipin Kumar Mishra

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

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Triveni Saran Rai, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. Sri Aravind Kumar Tripathi, Sri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Sri Hemant
Kumar, Sri Sudhanshu Ranjan, Sri Vipin Kumar Mishra, learned counsels
for the opposite party no. 2 are not present even in the revised call.
Despite their names being printed in the cause list, there is no
vakalatnama on the record. Office to trace it out and place it on the record
and make a note about it in the order sheet.

4. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with
the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned summoning order
dated 17.5.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ F.T.C..
Jaunpur in Complaint Case No.55/2019, Vindhyavasani Vs. Ramakant,
Police Station Nevadia, District Jaunpur, by which the applicant/accused
is summoned, under section-506 IPC.

This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased stay the further proceeding in
Complaint Case No.55/2019, Vindhyavasani Vs. Ramakant, Under
Section-506 IPC, Police Station Nevadia, District Jaunpur pending in the
Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C., Jaunpur during the
                                                                                    A482 No. 3180 of 2023
                                                2

pendency of the present application to meet the ends of justice otherwise
the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, and/or pass such
further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the
facts and circumstances of the case otherwise the applicant shall suffer
irreparable loss and injury."

5. On 22.10.2024 the following order was passed by another Bench of this
Court:-

"Case called out in revised list.
Mr. Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for

the State of U.P./opposite party No. 1 are present, but no one appears on behalf of opposite party No. 2

whereas names of Mr. Aravind Kumar Tripathi and Mr. Hemant Kumar, learned counsel, are shown as

counsel for opposite party in the cause list.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that vide order dated 15.02.2023, opposite party No. 2

was directed to file counter affidavit within six weeks, but till date, no counter affidavit has been filed.

Let this matter be listed in the first week of January, 2025 for final hearing.

Interim order, granted earlier, is extended until further order of this Court."


6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has not received any
counter affidavit till date by any of the respondents.

7. I.A. of the case on the web-portal also does not show filing of any
counter affidavit by any of the respondents in the present matter. On
22.10.2024 it was ordered that the matter be listed for final hearing. The
Court thus proceeds to hear the matter.

8. The facts of the case are that a complaint dated 02.03.2019 was filed by
the opposite party no.2 for offences under Sections 336, 504, 506 I.P.C.
against the applicant alleging therein that he is a resident of village-
Gopalapur, Police Station- Rampur, District Jaunpur. His relative is Vijay
Shankar Seth a resident of Jaunpur. His younger son Raj@Jay Shankar
who lives in Varanasi and has a mobile repairing shop. He was the
mediator in the marriage of Raj with Poonam Devi which was solemnized
on 12.5.2018. On information about marriage of Raj, the applicant
Ramakant along with some other persons came to him on 19.5.2018 and
has stated that his daughter is in love with Raj and wants to marry him.
She has also got his name tattooed on her hand and despite counseling
                                                         A482 No. 3180 of 2023
                               3


her, she is not understanding and wants to marry him else she would
commit suicide. When the complainant told them that Raj is already
married, they threatened him of falsely implicating him. They even
threatened him that if his daughter dies then he would not leave them
alive. The statement of the opposite party no. 2 was recorded under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of his witnesses namely Vijay Shankar as
P.W.-1 and Smt. Sita Devi as P.W.-2 were recorded under Section 202
Cr.P.C. The court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/FTC, Jaunpur summoned the
applicant for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. Thus the present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant
before this Court with the prayers as aforesaid.

9. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that no offence
whatsoever is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that
the complaint has been filed on 02.03.2019 for an incident alleged to have
taken place on 19.05.2018 which is filed after an unexplained delay of
about 10 months. It is submitted that even from perusal of the complaint it
would go to show that threat as alleged to have been extended, was of
falsely implicating the complainant and further it was stated that if his
daughter dies, then he would not leave him alive, which does not make
out a case under Section 506 I.P.C. since threat to life as per complainant,
was extended subject to action taken by the daughter of the complainant.
It is submitted that thus ingredients of Section 506 I.P.C. are not made
out. It is submitted that the present proceedings initiated with malafide
intentions and are an abuse of process of court.

10. 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 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
                                                        A482 No. 3180 of 2023
                               4


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.

(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
                                                                                             A482 No. 3180 of 2023
                                                                    5


                                    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."

                                    11. It is argued that as such the proceedings as initiated against the
                                    applicant are clearly abuse of process of law and thus the same be
                                    quashed.

                                    12. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for
                                    quashing and the submission of learned counsel for the applicant.

                                    13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
                                    records, it is evident that the complaint has been filed on 02.03.2019 for
                                    an incident alleged to have taken place on 19.05.2018 which is filed after
                                    an unexplained delay of about 10 months. A perusal of the complaint
                                    would go to show that threat as alleged to have been extended, was of
                                    falsely implicating the complainant and further it was stated that if his
                                    daughter dies, then he would not leave him alive, does not make out a
                                    case under Section 506 I.P.C. since threat to life as per complainant was
                                    subject to action taken by the daughter of the applicant. It is thus clear
                                    that ingredients of Section 506 I.P.C. are not made out.

                                    14. In view of the above discussion and the laws laid down by the Apex
                                    Court, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserved to be
                                    allowed and thus the same is allowed.

                                    15. The impugned summoning order is hereby quashed.

                                    16. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

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



                                                                                               (Samit Gopal,J.)
                                    September 11, 2026
                                    Naresh




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