caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Ahmad Ali Quraishi vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 30 January, 2020Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, Navin Sinha
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 138 OF 2020
(arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.3974 of 2018)
AHMAD ALI QURAISHI AND ANR. … APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
& ANR. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the
order of the High Court dated 21.02.2018 by
which the application under Section 482 CrPC
filed by the appellants accused to quash the
Signature Not Verified proceedings of Complaint Case No.1 of 2017 has
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2020.01.30
15:56:42 IST
Reason:
1
been rejected. Aggrieved by the order of the
High Court, this appeal has been filed.
2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted
to decide this appeal are:
(i) The appellants accused and the
respondent No.2 complainant belongs to
same family and are neighbours. The
father of the accused Anwarul Haq has
filed O.S.No.744/2015 against the
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 among the
parties.
(ii) On 19.07.2016, a quarrel took between
the parties. The police went on the
spot of incident on 19.07.2016 itself
and initiated proceedings under Section
2
151,107 and 116 Cr.P.C. Proceedings
were drawn under Cr.P.C. against both
the parties 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 the
accused Ahmad Ali Quraishi, and Liyakar
Ali Quraishi as well as their father
Anwarul Haq and their three other
brothers referring to incident dated
19.07.2016 at about 06:00 PM.
Allegation in the complaint was that
two daughters of complainant Firdaus
Bano and Gulishta Bano had gone to
public hand pump outside the house of
the complainant for fetching water at
that time Ahmad Ali and Liyakat Ali
accused indulge in indecent gestures
3
towards them and started pressing their
breasts. The daughter Firdaus Bano
sustained nail injuries. The girls were
also beaten. On alarm being raised the
complainant, his wife and others
reached the spot and intervened.
(iv) It was further alleged that on the same
day, Anwarul Haq, the accused and their
brothers with common intentions
forcibly entered the house of
complainant and hurld filthy abuses and
starting beating the daughters inside
the house. Application further alleged
that applicant gave information about
the incident but neither application
was taken nor medical got conducted.
Application was also sent through
Registered Post to Superintendent of
Police, Jaunpur, D.G.P., Lucknow and
4
National Human Right Commission, New
Delhi. In the application, offence
alleged against accused were under
Section 323, 354, 504, 506, 452 IPC and
Section 4 of POSCO Act.
(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 dated
14.10.2016 rejected the application
holding that there are no sufficient
grounds to register the case against
the appellants. Learned Sessions Judge
also noticed that according to report
of the Police Station proceeding under
Sections 151, 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. has
been initiated in respect of the said
incident.
5
(vi) Complainant filed a Criminal Revision
in the High court. The High Court vide
its judgment dated 22.11.2016 did not
interfere with the order rejecting the
application, however, it observed that
applicant has an alternative remedy by
way of filing an appropriate
application before the concerned Court
as per provisions of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
(vii) The application having already sent to
the National Human Rights Commission,
On the instruction of National Human
Rights Commission, the Superintendent
of Police directed the complaint to be
enquired by letter dated 07.11.2016
addressed to the C.O.(City), Jaunpur to
enquire the complaint. The C.O. (City),
Jaunpur conducted the enquiry, recorded
the statements of various persons
6
including the daughters of complainant
Firdaus Bano and Gulishtan Bano as well
as the accused and submitted the report
on 11.12.2016 opining that allegations
labelled by the complainant have not
been proved in the enquiry.
(viii) The complainant thereafter filed a
complaint Case No.1 of 2017 dated
04.10.2017 repeating the same
allegations against the appellants and
other accused which were made in his
application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.
(ix) The Learned Sessions Judge by order
dated 19.12.2017 summoned the
appellants under Section 323, 353, 504,
506 IPC and Section 7/8 POSCO Act. The
appellant filed an application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court
7
praying for quashing the entire
proceeding of Complaint Case No.1 of
2017 as well as the summoning order.
The application has been dismissed by
the High Court by the impugned judgment
dated 21.02.2018 aggrieved against
which judgment this appeal has been
filed.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant in support
of his case submits that dispute regarding
property between the father of the appellant
and the complainant is going on with regard to
which Civil Suit No.744 of 2015, Anwarul Haq
versus Sajjad Ali is pending in the court of
Civil Judge(Junior Division). To put pressure
on the appellant and to settle the property
dispute pending in the court of Civil Judge,
the complainants have filed frivolous
complaints against the appellants and other
8
family members before the Human Rights
Commission, Police Authorities as well as in
the Court of Sessions Judge.
4. Sessions Judge had already rejected his
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on
29.08.2016. The complaint sent by the
complainant to the Human Rights Commission
resulted in enquiry by Deputy Superintendent
of Police and report was submitted that no
such incident took place as alleged. In spite
of the rejection of the application and
nothing having been found against the
appellant in the enquiry, the complaint Case
No.1 of 2017 has been filed. The complaint by
the complainant is nothing but abuse of the
process of Court which has been actuated to
settle personal score and to put pressure on
the appellants and his father to settle in the
property dispute.
9
5.It is submitted that High Court failed to
consider the sequence of events and fact
situation of the present case in which the
complaint deserved to be quashed. It is
submitted that the complaint is manifestly
attended with mala fide and has been
maliciously instituted with ulterior motives.
6.It is further submitted that for the same
incident police has already initiated
proceedings under Section 151, 107,115 Cr.P.C.
against both the parties and they have been
asked to maintain the peace. The incident as
alleged against the appellant is imaginary and
completely false.
7.Learned counsel for the complainant has
supported the order of the High Court and
submits that High Court has rightly refused to
10
quash the proceedings. It is submitted that
High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. shall not examine the
question as to whether the allegations made
against the appellant in the complaint are
true or false nor High Court will assess the
evidence at this stage.
8. A Counter Affidavit has also been filed by
the State of Uttar Pradesh bringing on record
the application filed by complainant under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 29.08.2016 as
well as the enquiry report dated 11.12.2016
and submitted to Superintendent of Police,
Jaupur as AnnexureCA/2.
9. We have considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
11
10. Before we enter into facts of the present
case and submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties, it is necessary to look into
scope and ambit of Inherent Jurisdiction which
is exercised by the High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. This Court had occasion to
consider the scope and jurisdiction of Section
482 Cr.P.C. This Court in State of Haryana
and others versus Bhajan Lal and others, 1992
suppl. (1) SCC 335, had elaborately considered
the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C./
Article 226 of the Constitution in the context
of quashing the criminal proceedings. In
paragraph 102, this Court enumerated seven
categories of cases where power can be
exercised under Article 226/Section 482
Cr.P.C. by the High Court for quashing the
criminal Proceedings. Paragraph 102 is as
follows:
12
”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 adn
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,
13
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 noncognizable 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 ther is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act(under which a
criminal proceeding is
14
instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the
proceedings and/o where there is
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
malafide 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. This Court in Vineet Kumar and others
versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another,
(2017) 13 SCC 369, had considered the
jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. In the above case also, the Additional
Civil Judicial Magistrate had summoned the
accused for offence under Section 452, 376,
and 323 IPC and the Criminal Revision against
the said order was dismissed by the District
Judge.
15
12. This Court time and again has examined
the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and laid down
several principles which govern the exercise
of jurisdiction of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. A threeJudge Bench of
this Court in State of Karnataka v. L.
Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, held that the
High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding
if it comes to the conclusion that allowing
the proceeding to continue would be an abuse
of the process of the court or that the ends
of justice require that the proceeding ought
to be quashed. In para 7 of the judgment, the
following has been stated: (SCC p. 703)
“7. … In the exercise of this
wholesome power, the High Court is
entitled to quash a proceeding if it
comes to the conclusion that
allowing the proceeding to continue
would be an abuse of the process of
16
the court or that the ends of
justice require that the proceeding
ought to be quashed. The saving of
the High Court’s inherent powers,
both in civil and criminal matters,
is designed to achieve a salutary
public purpose which is that a court
proceeding ought not to be permitted
to degenerate into a weapon of
harassment or persecution. In a
criminal case, the veiled object
behind a lame prosecution, the very
nature of the material on which the
structure of the prosecution rests
and the like would justify the High
Court in quashing the proceeding in
the interest of justice. The ends of
justice are higher than the ends of
mere law though justice has got to
be administered according to laws
made by the legislature. The
compelling necessity for making
these observations is that without a
proper realisation of the object and
purpose of the provision which seeks
to save the inherent powers of the
High Court to do justice, between the
State and its subjects, it would be
impossible to appreciate the width
and contours of that salient
jurisdiction.”
13. A threeJudge Bench in State of Karnataka
v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89, had the
occasion to consider the ambit of Section 482
17
Cr.P.C. By analysing the scope of Section 482
Cr.P.C., this Court laid down that authority
of the Court exists for advancement of justice
and if any attempt is made to abuse that
authority so as to produce injustice, the
Court has power to prevent abuse. It further
held that Court would be justified to quash
any proceeding if it finds that
initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse
of the process of court or quashing of these
proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of
justice. The following was laid down in para
6: (SCC p. 94)
“6. … All courts, whether civil or
criminal possess, in the absence of
any express provision, as inherent in
their constitution, all such powers
as are necessary to do the right and
to undo a wrong in course of
administration of justice on the
principle quando lex aliquid alicui
concedit, concedere videtur et id
sine quo res ipsae esse non potest
(when the law gives a person anything
18
it gives him that without which it
cannot exist). While exercising
powers under the section, the court
does not function as a court of
appeal or revision. Inherent
jurisdiction under the section though
wide has to be exercised sparingly,
carefully and with caution and only
when such exercise is justified by
the tests specifically laid down in
the section itself. It is to be
exercised ex debito justitiae to do
real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone courts
exist. Authority of the court exists
for advancement of justice and if any
attempt is made to abuse that
authority so as to produce injustice,
the court has power to prevent abuse.
It would be an abuse of process of
the court to allow any action which
would result in injustice and prevent
promotion of justice. In exercise of
the powers court would be justified
to quash any proceeding if it finds
that initiation/continuance of it
amounts to abuse of the process of
court or quashing of these
proceedings would otherwise serve the
ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the complaint, the court
may examine the question of fact.
When a complaint is sought to be
quashed, it is permissible to look
into the materials to assess what the
complainant has alleged and whether
any offence is made out even if the
allegations are accepted in toto.”
19
14. Further in para 8 the following was
stated: (Devendrappa case, SCC p. 95)
“8. … Judicial process should not be
an instrument of oppression, or,
needless harassment. Court should be
circumspect and judicious in
exercising discretion and should take
all relevant facts and circumstances
into consideration before issuing
process, lest it would be an
instrument in the hands of a private
complainant to unleash vendetta to
harass any person needlessly. At the
same time the section is not an
instrument handed over to an accused
to shortcircuit a prosecution and
bring about its sudden death. The
scope of exercise of power under
Section 482 of the Code and the
categories of cases where the High
Court may exercise its power under it
relating to cognizable offences to
prevent abuse of process of any court
or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice were set out in some detail by
this Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal.”
15. In Sunder Babu v. State of T.N., (2009)
14 SCC 244, this Court was considering the
challenge to the order of the Madras High
20
Court where application was under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings under
Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. It was contended before
this Court that the complaint filed was
nothing but an abuse of the process of law and
allegations were unfounded. The prosecuting
agency contested the petition filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. taking the stand that a
bare perusal of the complaint discloses
commission of alleged offences and, therefore,
it is not a case which needed to be allowed.
The High Court accepted the case of the
prosecution and dismissed the application.
This Court referred to the judgment in Bhajan
Lal’s case and held that the case fell within
Category 7. The Apex Court relying on Category
7 has held that the application under Section
482 deserved to be allowed and it quashed the
proceedings.
21
16. After considering the earlier several
judgments of this Court including the case of
State of Haryana versus Bhajan lal (supra), in
Vineet Kumar (supra), this Court laid down
following in paragraph 41:
“41. Inherent power given to the
High Court under Section 482 CrPC is
with the purpose and object of
advancement of justice. In case
solemn process of Court is sought to
be abused by a person with some
oblique motive, the Court has to
thwart the attempt at the very
threshold. The Court cannot permit a
prosecution to go on if the case
falls in one of the categories as
illustratively enumerated by this
Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal. Judicial process is a solemn
proceeding which cannot be allowed
to be converted into an instrument
of operation or harassment. When
there are materials to indicate that
a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and
proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive, the High
Court will not hesitate in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC to quash the proceeding
22
under Category 7 as enumerated in
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
which is to the following effect:
(SCC p. 379, para 102)
“102. (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.”
Above Category 7 is clearly
attracted in the facts of the present
case. Although, the High Court has
noted the judgment of State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, but did not
advert to the relevant facts of the
present case, materials on which
final report was submitted by the IO.
We, thus, are fully satisfied that
the present is a fit case where the
High Court ought to have exercised
its jurisdiction under Section 482
CrPC and quashed the criminal
proceedings.”
17. Now, when we examine the facts of the
present case in light of the ratio as laid
down by this Court in above noted cases, it is
clear that the present is a case where parties
23
are related and are neighbours. Civil dispute
regarding property is going on between father
of the accused and the complainant. The
incident which is basis for summoning of
appellant is dated 19.07.2016 which is alleged
to have taken place in front of the house of
the complainant. The materials on record do
indicate that quarrel took place between the
parties on 19.07.2016 and police visited the
spot and initiated proceedings under Section
151, 107 and 116 Cr.P.C.. The state has
brought on the record the copy of the enquiry
report dated 11.12.2016 of the CO, City, in
which enquiry report, following was stated:
“…It was found form entire enquiry
that there was dispute between
applicant Shri Sajjad Quraishi and
opposite party Anwarul Haq over
constructing drain regarding which
dispute started between both the
parties on 19.07.2016. On receiving
information of dispute at Police
Station Kotwali, the then SHO SI
Shri hari Prakash Yadav conducted
24
proceeding under Sections 151,
107,116 CrPC on 20.07.2016 on both
the parties to maintain peace
tranquillity. During enquiry,
perused the complaint dated
03.08.2016 filed by the applicant
before the Hon’ble Commission and
found that the applicant filed
complaint dated 29.08.2016 of the
same charges u/s 156(3) CrPC before
the Hon’ble Court of Special
Judge(POCSO Act)/Additional Session
Judge, Court No.1, Jaunpur in which
the Hon’ble Court of Special Judge,
POCSO Act/Additional Session Judge,
Court No.1, Jaunpur, as per its
endorsement order dated 14.10.2016
has stated that in the entire facts
and circumstances of the said case,
sufficient grounds to register the
case are not available. Statements
of other witnesses recorded during
enquiry and nearby people were
interrogated whereupon eye witnesses
stated the fact of the dispute
between applicant Sajjad Qureshi and
opposite party Anwar Ali over the
drain and denying the allegations
levelled by the applicant in his
application, fact of opposite party
Ahmed Ali and Liyakat Ali sons of
Anwar doing dirty/indecent act/deed
or manhandling whatsoever with the
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 proved from
25
the enquiry. Peace and tranquillity
are prevailing at the spot, yet SHO
of Kotwali is directed to ensure
peace and tranquillity by keeping
vigil on the parties.
Report is submitted for kind
perusal.”
18. We have taken note of the above report
only to take the sequence of the event and not
as a substantive piece of evidence. On the
same allegations, the complainant has filed
the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
which was rejected by Sessions Judge by an
order dated 14.10.2016, holding that no
sufficient grounds have been made to register
a complaint against the appellant.
19. In the Criminal Revision filed against
the said order of the Session Judge, this
Court did not interfere with the rejection of
an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
26
however, observed that the complainant has
remedy to file appropriate application. The
complainant thereafter had filed Complaint
No.1 of 2017. It is true that rejection of an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in no
manner preclude a complainant to file a
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
20. From the sequence of the events as
noticed above, it is clear that dispute
regarding property between complainant and
father of the appellant 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 and has drawn
proceeding under Section 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C.
against both the parties and both the parties
were required to maintain peace is a clear
pointer to the nature of quarrel between the
27
parties. It was more than six weeks thereafter
that for the first time an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the
complainant against the accused in the court
of Session Judge.
21. One more fact which transpire from order
of Session Judge summoning the accused need to
be noted. As noted above, the complaint
against the appellant and other accused refers
to two incidents of 19.07.2016. One incident
which took place near the Public hand pump
outside the house of complainant and second,
on the same day in the house of the
complainant where he alleged that the
appellants, their father and other accused
entered into the house and started beating the
complainant and his daughters. Sessions Judge
in his summonig order did not believe the
28
second incident as alleged in the complaint.
Non believing on one part of the incident as
alleged in the complaint by the Court clearly
throws a shadow of doubt on the earlier part
of the incident as alleged.
22. Learned session judge in the impugned
judgment has not taken note of the Civil Suit
pending between the parties.
23. In the facts of present case, we are
fully satisfied that present is a case where
criminal proceedings have been initiated by
complainant with an ulterior motive due to
private and personal grudge. The High Court
although noticed the judgment of this Court in
State of Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal
and others(supra) in the impugned judgment but
did not examine the facts of the case as to
29
whether present is a case which falls in any
of the category as enumerated in Bhajan Lal’s
case. The present case clearly falls in
category VII of Bhajan Lal’s case and the High
Court failed to exercise jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing the criminal
proceeding initiated by the complaint.
24. In view of the foregoing discussions, we
are of the view that in permitting Criminal
proceedings against the appellant shall be
permitting a criminal proceeding which has
been maliciously instituted with ulterior
motives, permitting such criminal proceeding
to go on is nothing but the abuse of the
procees of the Court which needs to be
interfered by this Court.
25. In result, the appeal is allowed. The
criminal proceedings initiated by Complaint
30
Case No.1 of 2017, Sajjad Quraishi versus
Anwarul Haq Quraishi are quashed.
……………..J.
[ ASHOK BHUSHAN ]
……………..J.
[ M.R. SHAH ]
NEW DELHI,
JANUARY 30, 2020.
31
Comments