AHMAD ALI QURAISHI AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. on 30 January 2020

170

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2020] 1 S.C.R.

A

AHMAD ALI QURAISHI AND ANR.

v.

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

(Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2020)

B

JANUARY 30, 2020

[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Inherent powerof High Court – Appellants-accused and respondent no.2-complainant belong to same family and are neighbours – In 2015,Cfather of the accused filed suit against the complainant for partitionof properties which led to several altercations among the parties –On 29.08.16, complainant filed application u/s.156(3), CrPCalleging that on 19.07.16 when his daughters had gone to publichand pump outside their house for fetching water, the accusedDpersons indulged in indecent gestures towards them and had alsobeaten them – It was further alleged that on the same day, the accusedpersons entered the house of complainant and started beating himand his daughters – Application rejected – Another complaint wasfiled levelling the same allegations made in earlier application –Sessions Judge summoned the appellants – Appellants filedEapplication u/s.482, CrPC – Dismissed – On appeal, held: Disputeregarding property between complainant and father of the appellantwas pending much before the alleged incident dtd. 19.07.16 – Factthat on the same date of the incident, the Police visited the spot anddrew proceeding u/ss.151, 107 & 116 CrPC against both the partiesFand they were required to maintain peace is a clear pointer to thenature of quarrel between them – It was more than six weeksthereafter that for the first time an application u/s.156(3), CrPCwas filed by the complainant against the accused – Further, SessionsJudge in his summoning order did not believe the second incidentin the complaint alleging that the appellants, their father and otherGaccused entered into the house and started beating the complainantand his daughters – Non believing on one part of the alleged incidentin the complaint throws shadow of doubt on the earlier part of theincident – On facts, criminal proceedings were initiated by H

complainant with an ulterior motive due to personal grudge – HighCourt although noticed the judgment of Supreme Court in BhajanLal case but did not examine the facts as to whether present is acase which falls in any of the category enumerated therein – Presentcase clearly falls in category VII of Bhajan Lal’s case – High Courtfailed to exercise jurisdiction u/s.482, CrPC – Criminal proceedingsagainst the appellants are quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.323,354, 452, 504, 506 – Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesAct, 2012– s.4, 7 & 8.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

Conclusion

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1.1 The present is a case where parties are relatedand are neighbours. Civil dispute regarding property is going onbetween father of the accused and the complainant. It is clearthat dispute regarding property between complainant and fatherof the appellant is pending much before the alleged incident dated19.07.16. The fact that on the same date of the incident Policevisited the spot and has drawn proceeding under Section 151,107, 116 Cr.P.C. against both the parties and both the partieswere required to maintain peace is a clear pointer to the natureof quarrel between the parties. It was more than six weeksthereafter that for the first time an application under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant against the accused in thecourt of Session Judge. One more fact which transpire from orderof Session Judge summoning the accused need to be noted. Thecomplaint against the appellant and other accused refers to twoincidents of 19.07.2016. One incident which took place near thePublic hand pump outside the house of complainant and second,on the same day in the house of the complainant where he allegedthat the appellants, their father and other accused entered intothe house and started beating the complainant and his daughters.Sessions Judge in his summonig order did not believe the secondincident as alleged in the complaint. Non believing on one part ofthe incident as alleged in the complaint by the Court clearly throwsa shadow of doubt on the earlier part of the incident as alleged.The session judge in the impugned judgment has not taken noteof the Civil Suit pending between the parties. [Paras 20-22][183-E-H; 184-A-B]

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

172SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A1.3 Present is a case where criminal proceedings have beeninitiated by complainant with an ulterior motive due to privateand personal grudge. The High Court although noticed thejudgment of this Court in State of Haryana and others versusBhajan Lal and others in the impugned judgment but did notexamine the facts of the case as to whether present is a caseBwhich falls in any of the category as enumerated in Bhajan Lal’scase. The present case clearly falls in category VII of BhajanLal’s case and the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction underSection 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing the criminal proceeding initiatedby the complaint. In permitting Criminal proceedings against theCappellant shall be permitting a criminal proceeding which has beenmaliciously instituted with ulterior motives, permitting suchcriminal proceeding to go on is nothing but the abuse of theprocees of the Court which needs to be interfered by this Court.The criminal proceedings initiated by Complaint Case No.1 of2017 are quashed. [Paras 23-25] [184-C-E]DState of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others(1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 ;Vineet Kumar and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh andanother (2017) 13 SCC 369 : [2017] 6 SCR 922 ; Stateof Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 :E[1977] 3 SCR 113 ; State of Karnataka v. M.Devendrappa (2002) 3 SCC 89 : [2002] 1 SCR 275 ;Sunder Babu v. State of T.N. (2009) 14 SCC 244 : [2009]3 SCR 326 – relied on.

Case Law Reference

F

H

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 138 of 2020.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Application u/s 482 No. 5890 of 2018.

S. K. Verma, Rajan Kumar Chaurasia, Divyansh Rai and SandeepSingh, Advs. for the Appellants.

Garvesh Kabra, Surjeet Singh, Anubhav T. Mishra, LagneshMishra and V. N. Raghupathy, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the order of the HighCourt dated 21.02.2018 by which the application under Section 482 CrPCfiled by the appellants accused to quash the proceedings of ComplaintCase No.1 of 2017 has been rejected. Aggrieved by the order of theHigh Court, this appeal has been filed.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted to decide thisappeal are: -

(i) The appellants accused and the respondent No.2 complainantbelongs to same family and are neighbours. The father ofthe accused Anwarul Haq has filed O.S.No.744/2015 againstthe complainant in the court of Civil judge (Junior Division)with regard to partition of properties which suit is still pending.Suit between the parties led to several altercations amongthe parties.

(ii) On 19.07.2016, a quarrel took between the parties. The policewent on the spot of incident on 19.07.2016 itself and initiatedproceedings under Section 151,107 and 116 Cr.P.C.Proceedings were drawn under Cr.P.C. against both theparties to maintain peace at the spot.

(iii) On 29.08.2016, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.was filed by the complainant Sajjad Quraishi against theaccused Ahmad Ali Quraishi, and Liyakar Ali Quraishi aswell as their father Anwarul Haq and their three otherbrothers referring to incident dated 19.07.2016 at about 06:00

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

APM. Allegation in the complaint was that two daughters ofcomplainant Firdaus Bano and Gulishta Bano had gone topublic hand pump outside the house of the complainant forfetching water at that time Ahmad Ali and Liyakat Aliaccused indulge in indecent gestures towards them andstarted pressing their breasts. The daughter Firdaus BanoBsustained nail injuries. The girls were also beaten. On alarmbeing raised the complainant, his wife and others reachedthe spot and intervened.

(iv) It was further alleged that on the same day, Anwarul Haq,the accused and their brothers with common intentionsCforcibly entered the house of complainant and hurld filthyabuses and starting beating the daughters inside the house.Application further alleged that applicant gave informationabout the incident but neither application was taken normedical got conducted. Application was also sent throughDRegistered Post to Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, D.G.P.,Lucknow and National Human Right Commission, NewDelhi. In the application, offence alleged against accusedwere under Section 323, 354, 504, 506, 452 IPC and Section4 of POSCO Act.

E(v)On the application, Misc. Case No.14 of 2016 was registered.The learned Additional District/Sessions Judge (POSCO Act)considered the application of complainant and by order dated14.10.2016 rejected the application holding that there are nosufficient grounds to register the case against the appellants.Learned Sessions Judge also noticed that according to reportFof the Police Station proceeding under Sections 151, 107 and116 Cr.P.C. has been initiated in respect of the said incident.

(vi) Complainant filed a Criminal Revision in the High court. TheHigh Court vide its judgment dated 22.11.2016 did not interferewith the order rejecting the application, however, it observedGthat applicant has an alternative remedy by way of filing anappropriate application before the concerned Court as perprovisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.

(vii) The application having already sent to the National HumanRights Commission, On the instruction of National HumanH

Rights Commission, the Superintendent of Police directedthe complaint to be enquired by letter dated 07.11.2016addressed to the C.O.(City), Jaunpur to enquire thecomplaint. The C.O. (City), Jaunpur conducted the enquiry,recorded the statements of various persons including thedaughters of complainant Firdaus Bano and Gulishtan Banoas well as the accused and submitted the report on11.12.2016 opining that allegations labelled by the complainanthave not been proved in the enquiry.

(viii) The complainant thereafter filed a complaint Case No.1 of2017 dated 04.10.2017 repeating the same allegations againstthe appellants and other accused which were made in hisapplication under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

(ix) The Learned Sessions Judge by order dated 19.12.2017summoned the appellants under Section 323, 353, 504, 506IPC and Section 7/8 POSCO Act. The appellant filed anapplication under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Courtpraying for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint CaseNo.1 of 2017 as well as the summoning order. The applicationhas been dismissed by the High Court by the impugnedjudgment dated 21.02.2018 aggrieved against which judgmentthis appeal has been filed.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant in support of his case submitsthat dispute regarding property between the father of the appellant andthe complainant is going on with regard to which Civil Suit No.744 of2015, Anwarul Haq versus Sajjad Ali is pending in the court of CivilJudge(Junior Division). To put pressure on the appellant and to settle theproperty dispute pending in the court of Civil Judge, the complainantshave filed frivolous complaints against the appellants and other familymembers before the Human Rights Commission, Police Authorities aswell as in the Court of Sessions Judge.

4. Sessions Judge had already rejected his application underSection 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 29.08.2016. The complaint sent by thecomplainant to the Human Rights Commission resulted in enquiry byDeputy Superintendent of Police and report was submitted that no suchincident took place as alleged. In spite of the rejection of the applicationand nothing having been found against the appellant in the enquiry, the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acomplaint Case No.1 of 2017 has been filed. The complaint by thecomplainant is nothing but abuse of the process of Court which has beenactuated to settle personal score and to put pressure on the appellantsand his father to settle in the property dispute.

5. It is submitted that High Court failed to consider the sequenceBof events and fact situation of the present case in which the complaintdeserved to be quashed. It is submitted that the complaint is manifestlyattended with mala fide and has been maliciously instituted with ulteriormotives.

6. It is further submitted that for the same incident police hasCalready initiated proceedings under Section 151, 107,115 Cr.P.C. againstboth the parties and they have been asked to maintain the peace. Theincident as alleged against the appellant is imaginary and completelyfalse.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant has supported the orderDof the High Court and submits that High Court has rightly refused toquash the proceedings. It is submitted that High Court in exercise ofjurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. shall not examine the question asto whether the allegations made against the appellant in the complaintare true or false nor High Court will assess the evidence at this stage.

E8. A Counter Affidavit has also been filed by the State of UttarPradesh bringing on record the application filed by complainant underSection 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 29.08.2016 as well as the enquiry reportdated 11.12.2016 and submitted to Superintendent of Police, Jaupur asAnnexure-CA/2.

9. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for theFparties and perused the record.

10. Before we enter into facts of the present case and submissionsmade by learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to look intoscope and ambit of Inherent Jurisdiction which is exercised by the HighCourt under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court had occasion to considerGthe scope and jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court in State ofHaryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 suppl. (1)SCC 335, had elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section482 Cr.P.C./ Article 226 of the Constitution in the context of quashingthe criminal proceedings. In paragraph 102, this Court enumerated seven H

AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

categories of cases where power can be exercised under Article 226/Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court for quashing the criminalProceedings. Paragraph 102 is as follows: - “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevantprovisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principlesof law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating tothe exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or theinherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we haveextracted and reproduced above, we give the following categoriesof cases by way of illustration wherein such power could beexercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court orotherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possibleto lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficientlychannelised adn inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to givean exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such powershould be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information reportor the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value andaccepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute anyoffence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report andother materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclosea cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by policeofficers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under anorder of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) ofthe Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIRor complaint and the evidence collected in support of the samedo not disclose the commission of any offence and make out acase against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute acognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence,no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an orderof a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of theCode.

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint areso absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which noprudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there issufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where ther is an express legal bar engrafted in any ofthe provisions of the Code or the concerned Act(under whicha criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution andcontinuance of the proceedings and/o where there is specificprovision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficaciousredress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

B

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended withmalafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously institutedwith an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accusedand with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

C

11. This Court in Vineet Kumar and others versus State of UttarDPradesh and another, (2017) 13 SCC 369, had considered thejurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the above casealso, the Additional Civil Judicial Magistrate had summoned the accusedfor offence under Section 452, 376, and 323 IPC and the Criminal Revisionagainst the said order was dismissed by the District Judge.

E12.This Court time and again has examined the scope of jurisdictionof the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and laid down severalprinciples which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Courtunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State ofKarnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, held that the HighCourt is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion thatFallowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process ofthe court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought tobe quashed. In para 7 of the judgment, the following has been stated:(SCC p. 703)

E

“7. … In the exercise of this wholesome power, the HighGCourt is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to theconclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue wouldbe an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends ofjustice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. Thesaving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil andcriminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public H

AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to bepermitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment orpersecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind alame prosecution, the very nature of the material on whichthe structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justifythe High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest ofjustice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of merelaw though justice has got to be administered according tolaws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity formaking these observations is that without a proper realisationof the object and purpose of the provision which seeks tosave the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice,between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible toappreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.”

13. A three-Judge Bench in State of Karnataka v. M.Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89, had the occasion to consider theambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. By analysing the scope of Section 482Cr.P.C., this Court laid down that authority of the Court exists foradvancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authorityso as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent abuse. Itfurther held that Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if itfinds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process ofcourt or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the endsof justice. The following was laid down in para 6: (SCC p. 94)

“6. … All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in theabsence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution,all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo awrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quandolex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quores ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anythingit gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercisingpowers under the section, the court does not function as a courtof appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section thoughwide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution andonly when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laiddown in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiaeto do real and substantial justice for the administration of whichalone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement AB

C

DE

F

G

H

A

Aof justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so asto produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. Itwould be an abuse of process of the court to allow any actionwhich would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice.In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash anyproceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts toBabuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedingswould otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence isdisclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question offact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissibleto look into the materials to assess what the complainant hasCalleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegationsare accepted in toto.”

14. Further in para 8 the following was stated: (Devendrappacase, SCC p. 95)

“8. … Judicial process should not be an instrument ofoppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspectand judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevantfacts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process,lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainantto unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the sametime the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused toshort-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. Thescope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code andthe categories of cases where the High Court may exercise itspower under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse ofprocess of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justicewere set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v.Bhajan Lal.”

D

E

F

15. In Sunder Babu v. State of T.N., (2009) 14 SCC 244, thisCourt was considering the challenge to the order of the Madras HighCourt where application was under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminalproceedings under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the DowryProhibition Act, 1961. It was contended before this Court that thecomplaint filed was nothing but an abuse of the process of law andallegations were unfounded. The prosecuting agency contested thepetition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. taking the stand that a bare perusal G

H

of the complaint discloses commission of alleged offences and, therefore,it is not a case which needed to be allowed. The High Court acceptedthe case of the prosecution and dismissed the application. This Courtreferred to the judgment in Bhajan Lal’s case and held that the casefell within Category 7. The Apex Court relying on Category 7 has heldthat the application under Section 482 deserved to be allowed and itquashed the proceedings.

16. After considering the earlier several judgments of this Courtincluding the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan lal (supra),in Vineet Kumar (supra), this Court laid down following inparagraph 41: -

“41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice.In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by aperson with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart theattempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit aprosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories asillustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v.Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannotbe allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation orharassment. When there are materials to indicate that a criminalproceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceedingis maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Courtwill not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumeratedin State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which is to the followingeffect: (SCC p. 379, para 102)

“102. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attendedwith mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciouslyinstituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance onthe accused and with a view to spite him due to private andpersonal grudge.”

Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the presentcase. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of Stateof Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, but did not advert to the relevantfacts of the present case, materials on which final report wassubmitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

182SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Ais a fit case where the High Court ought to have exercised itsjurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminalproceedings.”

17. Now, when we examine the facts of the present case in lightof the ratio as laid down by this Court in above noted cases, it is clearBthat the present is a case where parties are related and are neighbours.Civil dispute regarding property is going on between father of the accusedand the complainant. The incident which is basis for summoning ofappellant is dated 19.07.2016 which is alleged to have taken place infront of the house of the complainant. The materials on record do indicatethat quarrel took place between the parties on 19.07.2016 and policeCvisited the spot and initiated proceedings under Section 151, 107 and 116Cr.P.C.. The state has brought on the record the copy of the enquiryreport dated 11.12.2016 of the CO, City, in which enquiry report, followingwas stated: -

“...It was found form entire enquiry that there was dispute betweenDapplicant Shri Sajjad Quraishi and opposite party Anwarul Haqover constructing drain regarding which dispute started betweenboth the parties on 19.07.2016. On receiving information of disputeat Police Station Kotwali, the then SHO SI Shri hari PrakashYadav conducted proceeding under Sections 151, 107,116 CrPCEon 20.07.2016 on both the parties to maintain peace tranquillity.During enquiry, perused the complaint dated 03.08.2016 filed bythe applicant before the Hon’ble Commission and found that theapplicant filed complaint dated 29.08.2016 of the same charges u/s 156(3) CrPC before the Hon’ble Court of Special Judge(POCSOAct)/Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Jaunpur in which theFHon’ble Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional SessionJudge, Court No.1, Jaunpur, as per its endorsement order dated14.10.2016 has stated that in the entire facts and circumstancesof the said case, sufficient grounds to register the case are notavailable. Statements of other witnesses recorded during enquiryGand nearby people were interrogated whereupon eye witnessesstated the fact of the dispute between applicant Sajjad Qureshiand opposite party Anwar Ali over the drain and denying theallegations levelled by the applicant in his application, fact ofopposite party Ahmed Ali and Liyakat Ali sons of Anwar doingdirty/indecent act/deed or manhandling whatsoever with the H

daughters of applicant has not come to light. During enquiry,applicant failed to submit oral/documentary evidence whatsoever.Other allegations levelled by the applicant have not been provedfrom the enquiry. Peace and tranquillity are prevailing at the spot,yet SHO of Kotwali is directed to ensure peace and tranquillityby keeping vigil on the parties.

Report is submitted for kind perusal.”

18. We have taken note of the above report only to take thesequence of the event and not as a substantive piece of evidence. Onthe same allegations, the complainant has filed the application underSection 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was rejected by Sessions Judge by anorder dated 14.10.2016, holding that no sufficient grounds have beenmade to register a complaint against the appellant.

19. In the Criminal Revision filed against the said order of theSession Judge, this Court did not interfere with the rejection of anapplication under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., however, observed that thecomplainant has remedy to file appropriate application. The complainantthereafter had filed Complaint No.1 of 2017. It is true that rejection ofan application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in no manner preclude acomplainant to file a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

20. From the sequence of the events as noticed above, it is clearthat dispute regarding property between complainant and father of theappellant is pending much before the alleged incident dated 19.07.2016.The fact that on the same date of the incident Police visited the spot andhas drawn proceeding under Section 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C. against boththe parties and both the parties were required to maintain peace is aclear pointer to the nature of quarrel between the parties. It was morethan six weeks thereafter that for the first time an application underSection 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant against the accusedin the court of Session Judge.

21. One more fact which transpire from order of Session Judgesummoning the accused need to be noted. As noted above, the complaintagainst the appellant and other accused refers to two incidents of19.07.2016. One incident which took place near the Public hand pumpoutside the house of complainant and second, on the same day in thehouse of the complainant where he alleged that the appellants, theirfather and other accused entered into the house and started beating the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acomplainant and his daughters. Sessions Judge in his summonig orderdid not believe the second incident as alleged in the complaint. Nonbelieving on one part of the incident as alleged in the complaint by theCourt clearly throws a shadow of doubt on the earlier part of the incidentas alleged.

B22. Learned session judge in the impugned judgment has not takennote of the Civil Suit pending between the parties.

23. In the facts of present case, we are fully satisfied that presentis a case where criminal proceedings have been initiated by complainantwith an ulterior motive due to private and personal grudge. The HighCCourt although noticed the judgment of this Court in State of Haryanaand others versus Bhajan Lal and others(supra) in the impugnedjudgment but did not examine the facts of the case as to whether presentis a case which falls in any of the category as enumerated in BhajanLal’s case. The present case clearly falls in category VII of BhajanLal’s case and the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction under SectionD482 Cr.P.C. in quashing the criminal proceeding initiated by the complaint.

24. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view thatin permitting Criminal proceedings against the appellant shall be permittinga criminal proceeding which has been maliciously instituted with ulteriormotives, permitting such criminal proceeding to go on is nothing but theEabuse of the procees of the Court which needs to be interfered by thisCourt.

25. In result, the appeal is allowed. The criminal proceedingsinitiated by Complaint Case No.1 of 2017, Sajjad Quraishi versus AnwarulHaq Quraishi are quashed.

F

Divya Pandey

Appeal allowed.

G

H