Allahabad High Court

GURU BUX SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.AND ANOTHER

Decided: 8 April 2026
Bench: JAI PRAKASH TIWARI

Holding

The Court refused to quash the chargesheet, holding that a prima facie case exists and the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly in serious offences.

Summary

The applicants filed a Section 482 CrPC application seeking to quash the chargesheet dated 06‑12‑2016 and the proceedings in a rape‑and‑criminal‑intimidation case (Sections 376D, 506 IPC). They argued that the FIR was false, that the victim’s statement indicated she was living with another man, and that the chargesheet was filed without considering affidavits from the victim’s mother and brother, alleging malafide prosecution. The State contended that the victim’s statement, recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, specifically implicated the applicants and that a prima facie case existed, justifying the chargesheet and cognizance by the magistrate. The Court held that the inherent power under Section 482 is to be exercised sparingly, especially in serious non‑compoundable offences, and that the presence of a specific allegation and a chargesheet creates a prima facie case that cannot be summarily quashed. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court declined to conduct a mini‑trial and refused the application, leaving the criminal proceedings to continue.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can quash a chargesheet and criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC when a prima facie case exists in a serious offence such as rape.
Whether the victim’s statement and the chargesheet constitute sufficient basis to deny the quashment application.
Whether affidavits of the victim’s relatives can override the recorded statements and the chargesheet.
Whether the inherent power under Section 482 can be exercised in cases involving non‑compoundable offences affecting society at large.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164, 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 376D, 498, 506

Subjects

Section 482
quashment
chargesheet
rape
sexual assault
prima facie case
inherent jurisdiction
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7929 of 2017

Guru Bux Singh And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P.And Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nand Lal Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Kumar Shukla, G.A., Mirza
Faheem Beg

Court No. - 84
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed today in the Court by learned counsel
for the applicants. The same is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mirza
Faheem Beg, learned counsel for opposite party and Mr. M.K.
Uapadhaya, learned AGA for the State.

3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the
charegsheet dated 06.12.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Case
No.25 of 2017, (State Vs. Guru Bux and another) arising out of Case
Crime No.727 of 2016, under Sections- 376D, 506 of IPC, Police Station
Allahganj, District Shahjahanpur.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicants that the FIR has
been lodged against the opposite party no.2 on 11.09.2016 against the
applicants with the allegation that the applicants have committed rape
with opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that the applicant no.1 is
the husband of opposite party no.2 and their marriage was solemnized in
the year 2003. It is further submitted that from the said marriage they
have two children. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 has
went away from the house of applicant no.1 with one Ajay Sharma on
14.07.2015 and in this regard an N.C.R. being N.C.R. No.42 of 2015
under Section 498 IPC Police Station- Allahganj District Shahjahanpur
was registered by the applicant no.1. Later on, the said N.C.R. was
converted in the first information report, which was registered as Case
A482 No. 7929 of 2017
2

Crime No.1157 of 2015 and during the course of investigation the
statement of opposite party no.2 was recorded and in her statement she
specifically stated that she is living with Ajay Sharma. The final report
has been submitted in the aforesaid Case Crime No.1157 of 2015. In the
present case, the mother and brother of opposite party no.2 have given the
affidavit before the Superintendent of Police on 17.09.2016 stating that
the false and concocted case has been lodged against the applicants;
however during the course of investigation, statements of the victim as
well as witnesses have been recorded. It is also submitted that without
considering the affidavit submitted by the mother and brother of opposite
party no.2 the chargesheet has been submitted against the applicants
under Sections- 376D and 506 IPC. Essential ingredients to constitute the
offence are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a
malafide intention.

5. Learned AGA as well as counsel for opposite party no.2 has opposed
the prayer with the submission that there is specific allegation has been
made in statement of opposite party no.2 recorded during the course of
investigation against the applicants. There is no variation in the version of
FIR or the statement of opposite party no.2. The chargesheet has been
filed after proper investigation. It is further submitted that the cognizance
has already been taken in the matter. It is also submitted that there is
material evidence on record to proceed with the trial. It is further
submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order
and no interference is called for.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and have gone through the entire evidence.

7. A perusal of the first information report and the statement of the
opposite party no.2 would demonstrate that there are specific and separate
allegations against the applicants. After investigation chargesheet has also
been filed against the present applicants and cognizance have been taken
by the concerned learned Magistrate.

8. It is well settled law that inherent power to quash the proceedings is
very limited. The Hon'be Apex Court has consistently held that serious
offence like rape/gang rape are matter against society and cannot be
quashed only on a "weak" statement from witnesses. In case of sexual
A482 No. 7929 of 2017
3

assault the testimony of the victim is important, even if other witnesses do
not support the prosecution version or give contrary statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., the case cannot be summarily quashed, if the
victim's statement indicates commission of the offence. Here in the
present case, there are specific allegation made against the present
applicants, the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., and statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,
recorded by the learned Magistrate concerned, even there is contradiction
but victim/opposite party has made specific allegation against the present
applicants and after investigation, chargesheet has been submitted by the
Investigating Officer concerned and on the basis of chargesheet, the
learned Magistrate concerned has taken cognizance vide order dated
23.01.2017. It also appears that only the chargesheet has been challenged
in the present application, while the cognizance has also been taken by the
learned Magistrate vide order dated 23.01.2017.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Muskan Vs. Ishaan Khan
(Sataniya) and others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355, held that on the
aspect of the powers of the Courts under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, it is
settled that at the stage of quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a
mini trial. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted as under:-

"26. Further, this Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Habib
Abdullah Jeelani12 held that:

“13. There can be no dispute over the proposition that inherent
power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly
and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by
the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. There is no denial
of the fact that the power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide but it
needs no special emphasis to state that conferment of wide power
requires the Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more
diligent duty on the Court."

10. In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed
that quashing of a charge sheet is not proper where a prima facie case is
made out on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the concerned
Investigating Officer, particularly in cases requiring detailed appreciation
A482 No. 7929 of 2017
4

of evidence and in cases involving heinous and non-compoundable
offences which affect society at large

11. As is evident, all the submissions made at the bar relate to the
disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to
be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the 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. From a
perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts
of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the
present applicants are not made out. Hence, prayer made in the
application is refused.

11. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed leaving it open for
the applicants to avail the remedy as permissible under law, if so advise.

(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
April 9, 2026
S.K.

Digitally signed by :-
SWEETY KANOJIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…