Janardan Prasad Shukla And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Anr.

A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2390 of 2017
Janardan Prasad Shukla And Ors. ….……..Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. And Anr. …..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Govt. Advocate, Vimal Shukla
Reserved on 25.02.2026
Delivered on 22.05.2026
Court No. - 22
HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Heard Shri Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the
applicants/petitioners, and Shri Vimal Shukla, learned Counsel for the
Opposite party no.2, as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State,
and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), has been filed
assailing the Judgment and order dated 08.03.2017, passed in Criminal
Revision No. 31/2017 by District Judge, Balrampur and the Summoning
Order dated 20.01.2016, passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Balrampur
by means of which the applicants/petitioners were summoned in
Complaint Case No. 545/2014 under Sections 323,452,392,506 Ι.P.C.,
lodged at Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur, in the case
of “ Manoj Kumar Tewari versus Janardan Prasad Shukla and others ”.

2
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
3. The factual exposition, as set forth in the complaint filed by
opposite party no. 2, is that due to matrimonial discord, particularly
arising out of proceedings for dissolution of marriage initiated by
opposite party no. 2 against the daughter of applicant/petitioner no. 1,
enmity developed between the parties. On 12.05.2014, on account of the
said animosity, the applicants/petitioners came to the residence of
opposite party no. 2, assaulted him, and forcibly snatched a sum of Rs.
10,000/-. On the basis of these allegations, Complaint Case No.
545/2014 under Sections 323, 452, 392 and 506 I.P.C was instituted in
May 2014 at Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur.
4. Subsequently, pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, the statement
of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., followed by
the statements of witnesses, namely, Jitendra Kumar Dubey, Vishnu Pal
Singh, and Subham. Upon consideration of the material so collected, the
Magistrate proceeded to pass the impugned Summoning Order dated
20.01.2016 against the applicants/petitioners, in the following words:
“
fnukad 20@01@2016
vkt i=koyh vkns”k gsrq fu;r gSA ryoh ds
fcanq ij ifjoknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lquk tk pqdk gSA
i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA
ifjoknh eukst dqekj frokjh }kjk foi{khx.k tuknZu uj flag
ujk;.k izgykn ehuk “kqDyk o dksey mQZ izoh.k ds fo:) ifjokn
i= izLrqr dj dFku fd;k x;k gS fd ifjoknh dk rykd eqdnek
iwtk mQZ :ch ds lkFk py jgk gSA blh jaft”k dks ysdj ifjoknh
ds llqj tukZnu uj flag ukjk.k izgykn ehuk “kqDyk o dksey mQZ
izoh.k fnukad 12@5@14 dks nksigj 2 cts ifjoknh ds ?kj vk;s
rFkk ngst esas feyk lkeku okil ekaxus yxsA ifjoknh us dgk fd
mlds ?kj okyksa us mls ?kj o lEifRr ls csn[ky dj fn;k gS vr%
ngst dk lkeku ?kj tk dj ys ysA bl ij mDr foi{khx.k
ifjoknh dh eka cgu dh xkyh nsrs gq, ekjus ihVus yxsA ifjoknh
Hkkxdj vius ?kj esa ?kql x;kA foi{khx.k ifjoknh ds ?kj es ?kql
x;s vkSj ykr eqDdk FkIiM+ ls ekjus ihVus yxsA foi{khx.k us
ifjoknh ds est ij iM+k eq0 nl gtkj :i;k mBk fy;k rFkk tkrs
tkrs /kedh fn;k fd rykd dk eqdnek ugha mBk;k rks tku ls
ekj nsaxsA
?kVuk ds leFkZu esa ifjoknh n~okjk Lo;a dk c;ku varxZr /kkjk 200
n-iz-la- rFkk lk{khx.k ih MCY;w 1 fo’.kqiky flag ih MCY;w 2 “kqHke

3
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
dk c;ku va /kkjk 202 n-iz-la-0 vafdr djk;k x;kA lk{khx.k us
foi{khx.k n~okjk ?kj esa ?kqldj ekjihV djus :i;s ysus o tku ls
ekjus dh /kedh nsus ds vijk/k dkfjr djus dk leFkZu fd;k gSA
foi{khx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 323] 452] 392 o 506 Hkk n la ds
vijk/k dk izFke n`’V;k vk/kkj izrhr gksrk gSA foi{khx.k vkgqr
fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA
vkns”k
foi{khx.k tukZnu “kqDy] uj flag ujk;.k izgykn ehuk “kqDy o dksey mQZ
izoh.k dks vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 323] 452] 392 o 506 Hkk0 n0 la0 ds
fopkj.k gsrq U;k;ky; }kjk vkgqr fd;k tkrk gSA ifjokfnuh iSjoh vUnj 10
fnu esa djsaA lwph xokgu nkf[ky gksA rn~uqlkj U;k;ky; }kjk vknsf”kdk,a
”
tkjh gksA i=koyh okLrs gkftj seqfYte fnukad 10@02@2016 dks is”k gksA
5. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid Summoning Order, the
applicants/petitioners preferred a Criminal Revision before the District
and Sessions Judge, Balrampur. However, the Revisional Court, vide its
order dated 08.03.2017, dismissed the Revision petition without granting
relief to the present applicants/petitioners. Therefore, the present
application/petition has been filed assailing both the aforesaid impugned
orders dated 20.01.2016 (passed by the Ld. Magistrate) and 08.03.2017
(passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge), respectively.
6. Mr. D.K. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the
applicants/petitioners, contends that in the present case, the complaint
has been instituted with considerable delay without any plausible
explanation for such delay. It has been further submitted that the
allegations made in the complaint are inherently improbable,
exaggerated, and devoid of substance, and do not disclose the
commission of any cognizable offence. It has been strenuously submitted
by the learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners that the impugned
complaint has been instituted by the husband (opposite party No.2)
against his in-laws on account of matrimonial discord and is a
counterblast to the pending matrimonial proceedings between the parties.
7. It is urged that the allegations made in the complaint are omnibus,
inherently improbable, and do not disclose the essential ingredients of
the offences alleged. Learned Counsel has submitted that even if the
entire complaint is taken at its face value, no offence under Section 392

4
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
of the I.P.C. is made out, inasmuch as there is no clear allegation
constituting robbery in the eyes of law. Similarly, the ingredients of
house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint
punishable under Section 452 I.P.C. are also not elucidated with the
required specificity. So far as Section 323 I.P.C. is concerned, the
complaint does not disclose any specific grievous hurt, much less
material to show that the accused persons intended to cause, or knew
themselves to be likely to cause, grievous hurt. It is lastly submitted that
the allegations regarding criminal intimidation are vague and general in
nature.
8. The learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners has further
submitted that the witnesses examined under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. are closely related and interested witnesses, whose statements are
allegedly tutored and lack independent corroboration. Their testimonies
do not inspire confidence and have been relied upon mechanically by the
learned Magistrate. It has been vehemently submitted that the learned
Magistrate passed the Summoning Order in a routine and mechanical
manner, without due application of judicial mind and without recording
any satisfaction as to the existence of a prima facie case. Similarly, the
Revisional Court also failed to consider the grounds raised by the
applicants/petitioners and dismissed the Revision petition in a cursory
manner without proper reasoning.
9. Learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners has lastly urged that
the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
applicants/petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the
Court, and therefore, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be invoked for quashing the impugned orders. To
buttress his arguments, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners has
placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal
And Ors, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604; ‘X’ vs State of Madhya
Pradesh and Anr., reported as 2025 INSC 1143; and G.V. Rao vs L.H.V.
Prasad and Ors, reported in AIR 2000 SC 2474.

5
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
10. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite party no.
2, as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State, have submitted that the
impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. It has
been contended by both that the complaint filed in the present dispute
discloses clear, specific and categorical allegations against the
applicants/petitioners, that they trespassed into the house of the
complainant, assaulted him, and forcibly snatched a sum of Rs. 10,000/-.
The said allegations prima facie constitute offences under Sections 323,
452, 392 and 506 I.P.C., and, thus, the Summoning Order has been
rightly passed by the learned Magistrate.
11. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that at the stage of
Summoning, the Magistrate is only required to ascertain whether a prima
facie case is made out on the basis of the material available on record. It
has been further submitted that the plea regarding delay in filing the
complaint is a matter of trial and cannot be a ground for quashing the
proceedings in limine . Similarly, the defence taken by the
applicants/petitioners, including the plea of matrimonial dispute and
alleged false implication, involves disputed questions of fact, which
cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
12. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties has lastly submitted that
the Revisional Court duly considered the material on record and has
rightly affirmed the Summoning Order. No jurisdictional error or
perversity has been demonstrated in the impugned orders. It has been
vehemently submitted that the inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and only in
cases where no offence is made out or there is manifest abuse of the
process of law. To buttress their arguments, learned Counsel for the
opposite parties have placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case of Muskan v. Ishaan Khan
(Sataniya), reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355; and judgment of
this Court rendered in the case of Satish Singh v. State of U.P., reported
in 2019 SCC OnLine All 4133.

6
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
ANALYSIS OF THE COURT
13. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and
perused the documents available on record. On perusal of the materials
on record, it appears that the complainant, who is the Opposite Party
No.2 in the present case, has alleged that his father-in-law (petitioner
No.1), his father-in-law’s brothers (petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No.3),
his mother-in-law (petitioner No. 4) and his brother-in-law (petitioner
No.5) came to his rented accommodation on the fateful day of 12th of
May 2014 at about 2 PM and demanded the return of dowry articles
retained by him during an ensuing matrimonial dispute between him and
his wife (who is not a party in the present Petition).
14. The story further unfolds through the statement of the
complainant, wherein he requested these five people to go to his father’s
house to seek the dowry articles, as he claimed to have been disowned
by his father and was living separately in rented accommodation.
According to the complainant, this justification/diversion infuriated all
these five people, who hurled abuses at him. Further, the complainant
alleges that he was beaten, and when he ran back to his house, these five
people followed him and forcefully entered with the intention to cause
him hurt. Owing to his shouting and/or raising of an alarm, four of his
friends arrived at the scene and tried to save him from the assault. It has
been further alleged that while receding from the crime-scene, these
applicants/petitioners took away Rs. 10,000/-, from his house.
15. On a prima facie perusal of the complaint, the allegations appear
to be serious in nature. However, the present applicants/petitioners have
filed this application praying for quashing the criminal proceedings
against them on the primary ground that the complaint is a counter-blast
to the matrimonial proceedings pending between the complainant and his
wife (not a party to the present Petition). According to the
applicants/petitioners, the complaint has been lodged with mala fide
intention to exert pressure due to the ongoing matrimonial dispute and is

7
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
an outcome of vengeance, and they have heavily relied on clause (g) of
para 102 of the Bhajan Lal Case (Supra) .
16. It has also been highlighted that all the witnesses are friends of the
complainant and are not independent. Further, it has been submitted that
these people were not involved in the alleged occurrence, as there is no
material on record to entangle them in the crime. Accordingly, the
applicants/petitioners have prayed for quashing of the criminal
proceeding against them.
17. It is in this factual and legal backdrop that this Court is called
upon to scrutinize the applicants’/petitioners’ prayer on the touchstone of
the inherent powers vested in it under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (corresponding to Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.), read
with the established principles governing the quashing of criminal
proceedings.
18. This Court is also reminded of the scope and extent of its
consideration of the present application, as quashing proceedings ought
not to be converted into a mini-trial. Further, this Court is also conscious
of the limitations on exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
and of the principle that disputed questions of fact ordinarily ought not
to be adjudicated at the threshold. However, where the allegations, even
if accepted as they stand, fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the
offences alleged, and where the criminal proceeding appears to be a
device to give a criminal colour to a private matrimonial discord, the
continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the
process of the Court.
19. The principles governing the quashing of an F.I.R. or criminal
proceedings are no longer res integra . As such, a detailed excursus is
unnecessary, and it would suffice to make brief reference to the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the scope of the High Court's
inherent powers to quash an F.I.R. or criminal proceedings was
delineated. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in para 102 of the celebrated
judgment of  State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC

8
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
604; laid down the following illustrative scenarios where the High Court
may exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the
Court or to secure the ends of justice:-
“(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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.
(d) 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.
(e) 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.
(f) 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.
(g) 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 .”

9
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
20. Having adverted to the time-tested and settled principles
emanating from  Bhajan Lal's case (supra) , the enquiry of this Court
must now shift to the governing touchstone for exercise of inherent
jurisdiction. The power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code (corresponding to Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.) is intended to be
invoked only where such exercise is necessary to give effect to orders
under the Code, to prevent abuse of the process of Court, or to secure the
ends of justice.
21. The aforesaid principles have been repeatedly reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, more recently, in the
case of Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 185; wherein the Hon'ble Court held as follows :-
"8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its
extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may
issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to
secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither
controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision.
However, given the broad and profound nature of this
authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The
conditions for invoking such powers are embedded
within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court
to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where
intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice.
9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of
several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines
that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal
proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-empting the
Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The
grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following
situations : (i) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala
fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process;
(iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil
in nature; (v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus
allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and
compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)."

10
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
22. Keeping the aforesaid axiom in mind, and since the hinge of the
argument of the petitioners is that the complaint is mala fide and
contains vague and omnibus allegations, this Court finds it profitable to
quote a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein, in addition to
the aforesaid basic principles to be followed by this Court while
evaluating whether a criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed, the Apex
Court has provided certain additional clarifications/restrictions in the
case of Mohd. Wajid Vs state of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2023) 20
SCC 219; and has cast a duty on this Court to examine the complaint
with care and a little more closely in the followings words:
“36. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty
to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
37. We say so because once the complainant decides to
proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that
the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments
made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence.
Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into
the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not.
38. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a
duty to look into many other attending circumstances
emerging from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection
try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of
the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a
case but is empowered to take into account the overall

11
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case
as well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation….. ”
23. This Court, being empowered to take into account the overall
circumstances leading to the initiation of the complaint by opposite party
No.2 and to read between the lines, finds that the present complaint was
filed on 19.05.2014, concerning an incident allegedly occurring on
14.05.2014. Prior to the said complaint, three proceedings have been
pending between the complainant/ Opposite Party No.2 and his wife
(who is not a party to the present proceedings). The first being a
proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, filed
against the Opposite Party No.2 seeking maintenance on 09.05.2012; the
second being a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, filed by the Opposite Party No.2 on 26.03.2012; and the third being
an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed in the
divorce petition relating to grant of pendente-lite maintenance, filed
against the Opposite Party no.2 by his wife, which, as per the records,
had been allowed in her favour vide an order dated 17.09.2013. Thus,
apparently, the present matter predominantly has its root cause to the
matrimonial dispute between the Opposite Party no.2 and his wife, who
is the daughter/niece of petitioner No.1 to 4 and the sister of petitioner
No.5.
24. There can be no doubt whatsoever that cases of the present nature
are sensitive and warrant a thorough trial before the competent Court.
However, it must also be borne in mind that, while conducting such trial,
the competent Court must exercise restraint in roping in innocent family
members on the basis of general or omnibus allegations, which has been
a growing trend, whether at the instance of a wife or a husband, as in the
present case. The Apex Court in the case of G.V. Rao Vs L.H.V Prasad,
reported in 2000(3) SCC 693; some two and half decades ago observed
as follows:
“12.  There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in
recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main
purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down

12
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions
resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of
the family are also involved with the result that those who
could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the
criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not
be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation
so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and
terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement
instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years
and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose
their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different
courts. ”
25. The aforesaid Judgment is relevant to the present context,
inasmuch as at least Petitioner nos.1 to 4, who are elders of the wife of
Opposite Party no.2, would had been best positioned to act as
counsellors between him and their daughter. However, apparently due to
the filing of this kind of cases, obviously no elders come forward to offer
any counselling, resulting in the flooding of matrimonial cases. This
Court may not baulk to observe that one of the key reasons for today’s
ever-increasing matrimonial disputes among young couples is the lack of
adequate and fearless counselling by their own elders, who may
understand the issues much better than professional counsellors available
in the market.
26. Nevertheless, this Court, restricting itself to the determination of
this application on the touchstone of evidence brought on record, would
swiftly discuss the material brought on records and as to whether these
materials were adequate for the learned Magistrate to issue summons to
the applicants/petitioners.
27. It is well settled that the Trial Court is not to act merely on the
version of the complainant but must objectively scrutinize the material
brought on record before issuing process and setting the criminal
proceedings in motion. The learned Trial Court is not only required to
assess whether a prima-facie case exists against the accused proposed to
be summoned, but must also weigh whether sufficient material has been

13
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
brought on record through evidence led by the complainant or its
witnesses.
28. It must be understood that the role assigned to the Trial Court is
not to act mechanically but to form an opinion on the basis of material
brought on record, bearing in mind that summoning of any accused in a
criminal case is a serious matter. The law is settled that the issuance of
summons is not merely a formality, but a serious business as it sets the
criminal law into motion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the celebrated
judgment of Pepsi Foods Ltd. And Another Vs. Special Judicial
Magistrate and Others, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749; at paragraph 28
of the said report, held as under :-
"28.  Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious
matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of
course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two
witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have
the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate
summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his
mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.
He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the
complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in
support thereof and would that be sufficient for the
complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the
accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at
the time of recording of preliminary evidence before
summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully
scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even
himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to
elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or
otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie
committed by all or any of the accused. "
29. Apparently, a facial reading of the depositions of the witnesses
indicates that no specific role has been assigned to any of the five
applicants/petitioners. There is no evidence from any of the four
witnesses produced by the Opposite Party no.2 as to who has abused or
who has beaten and how or as to who took the Rs. 10,000/- and from
where. There is no evidence as to when the four witnesses arrived at the
scene to save the complainant/Opposite Party no.2. The self-evidence led

14
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
by the opposite party No.2 merely names four people who came to save
him towards the end of his deposition, which obviously indicates the
preparation of witnesses by the Opposite Party no.2.
30. Although assigning a role to each of the accused may not be fatal
to the prosecution, however, in the present case, there are serious
contradictions in the versions of the witnesses. For example, regarding
the act of taking away of Rs. 10,000/-, Opposite Party no. 2 merely says
that Rs. 10,000/- has been taken away, without naming any person or
mentioning any place, whereas one of the witnesses- Jitendra, has
deposed that the said money was lying in a polyethylene bag on the
table. He also does not name any person as to who took away the said
money. Further, P.W.-1 Vishun Pal Singh also deposes that the money
was kept on the table and was taken away. He also does not name any
particular person as to who did take the said money. As far as P.W.-2-
Subham Dubey is concerned, he did not depose anything as to whether
any money was taken away or as to who took the money.
31. Apparently, these three witnesses have been brought merely to
support the version of the complaint, as is clear from the cyclostyled
deposition of each of these witnesses. Interestingly, not a single
document has been marked as an exhibit, and the entire case appears to
be premised solely on the version of oral testimony. This court need not
further burden this judgment by citing the binding precedents, as to
when the case is purely based on oral evidence, the court has to tread a
skeptical approach, rather than be liberal in initiating the criminal
machinery.
32. Further, a plain reading of these testimonies brings to the fore that
the ingredients of the offences under Sections 323, 392, 452 and 506
I.P.C. are not made out. Mere reproduction of penal Sections or use of
criminal law phraseology, without foundational facts, cannot justify
issuance of process.
33. Insofar as Section 323 I.P.C. is concerned, the offence relates to
voluntarily causing grievous hurt, which requires not only hurt of a

15
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
grievous nature but also the requisite intention or knowledge referable to
such grievous hurt. The depositions of the witnesses, however, does not
disclose any specific grievous injury answering the statutory
requirement, nor does it contain allegations sufficient to prima facie
establish the requisite mens rea for the said offence.
34. Similarly, the allegations under Section 392 I.P.C. are
conspicuously deficient in material particulars. There is no specific
assertion in the depositions before this Court showing the necessary
ingredients of theft or extortion coupled with violence or fear of instant
violence to bring the accusation within the fold of robbery. Likewise, to
attract Section 452 I.P.C., there must be clear foundational allegations
regarding house-trespass along with the statutory aggravating element;
such particulars are missing in the present depositions. Even the
allegations under Section 506 I.P.C. appear to be couched in vague and
omnibus language. In criminal complaints arising out of strained
matrimonial relationships, bald allegations of threat, in the absence of
details such as date, time, place, words used, and surrounding
circumstances, cannot by themselves furnish a legally sustainable basis
for summoning all accused persons.
35. Having discussed the evidence, this Court will next examine the
Summoning Order passed by the learned Magistrate, which was, in a
way, a consequential effect of the material brought on record. The law is
now well settled that, as far as the order of the Magistrate summoning
the accused is concerned, it must reflect that the Magistrate has applied
his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.
36. Further, it is incumbent on the Magistrate to examine the nature of
allegations made in the complaint, the evidence both oral and
documentary in support thereof, and objectively examine as to whether
the same would be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing
the charge home to the accused.
37. Further, as to the mandatory application of mind in the process of
taking cognizance, the Apex Court in the case of  Bhushan Kumar and

16
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, reported in  (2012) 5 SCC
424; held as under :-
“11.  In Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International
Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 492 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 471] (SCC p. 499,
para 19) the expression “cognizance” was explained by this Court
as “it merely means ‘become aware of’ and when used with
reference to a court or a Judge, it connotes ‘to take notice of
judicially’. It indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate
takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating
proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been
committed by someone.” It is entirely a different thing from
initiation of proceedings; rather it is the condition precedent to
the initiation of proceedings by the Magistrate or the Judge.
Cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons. Under Section
190 of the Code, it is the application of judicial mind to the
averments in the complaint that constitutes cognizance. At this
stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient
ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground
for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting
the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the
stage of enquiry. If there is sufficient ground for proceeding then
the Magistrate is empowered for issuance of process under
Section 204 of the Code. ”
38. According to this Court, the best way to examine whether there
has been any application of mind or not by the Magistrate is to search
and examine as to whether any reasoning has been appended by the
Magistrate for issuance of summons, for one cannot enter the mind of
anyone to see its application. The applicability of mind is best reflected
from the reasoning in the order itself. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of GHCL Employees Stock Options Trust Vs India Infoline
Limited, reported in (2013)4 SCC 505; observed as follows:
“14.  Be that as it may, as held by this Court, summoning of
accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Hence, criminal
law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of
the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has
applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable
thereto. The Magistrate has to record his satisfaction with regard
to the existence of a prima facie case on the basis of specific
allegations made in the complaint supported by satisfactory
evidence and other material on record. ”

17
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
39. As far as the present case is concerned, this Court finds that the
learned Trial Court, while considering the issuance of summons, relied
on the depositions of Vishnu Pal and Subham dubey and did not even
mention the deposition of Jitendra, although it is apparent from the
records that his deposition was recorded. Further, the Magistrate has not
offered any reason as to why the deposition of Jitendra was overlooked,
whereas it is clear from deposition of each of the witness that Jitendra
was also present on the scene when the alleged incident occurred.
40. Further, as far as taking away of Rs. 10,000/- is concerned, there is
material contradiction. In any case, both witnesses relied upon by the
Magistrate do not say that the money was taken forcefully or under a
threat of death, hurt or wrongful restraint. This Court fails to understand
as to how the learned Magistrate, by virtue of a cryptic order, which has
been purposely quoted herein above, and without examining the
ingredients of the Sections sought to be invoked, issued summons to the
petitioners under Sections 323, 392, 452 and 506 I.P.C., on the mere
askance of the Opposite Party no.2/ Complainant.
41. On a perusal of the complaint and the depositions brought on
record, it is apparent that no specific role has been assigned to any of the
applicants/petitioners. The allegations are most general and omnibus.
They appear to be a product of implicating relatives in
matrimonial disputes, for a change, this time initiated by the husband
rather than the wife, which has been prevalent these days. The
applicants/petitioners are made to face a criminal trial on general and
sweeping allegations, without bringing on record, any specific instances
of criminal conduct. The present proceedings appear to be manifestly
vexatious and filed with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on
the applicants/petitioners, who are close relatives of the wife of the
opposite party no.2. Recently, the Apex Court in Achin Gupta vs. State
of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2025) 3 SCC 756; in somewhat
similar situation held that :-

18
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
"24. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some
general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record
any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but
abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to
subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough
scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of
truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the
sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal
charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a
matrimonial dispute.

35. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in
Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. [Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.,
(2023) 15 SCC 488] , authored by one of us (J.B. Pardiwala,
J.), the legal principle applicable apropos Section 482CrPC
was examined. Therein, it was observed that when an accused
comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent
power under Section 482CrPC or the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a
duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It
was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court
to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or
not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a
duty to look into many other attending circumstances
emerging from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection,
to try and read between the lines.
36. For the foregoing reasons, we have reached to the
conclusion that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to
continue against the appellant, the same will be nothing short
of abuse of process of law and travesty of justice. This is a fit
case wherein, the High Court should have exercised its
inherent power under Section 482CrPC for the purpose of
quashing the criminal proceedings. "
(Emphasis Supplied)

19
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
42. As to filing of a complaint without any specific allegations, in
Chandralekha vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2013)14 SCC 374;
the Apex Court held that vague, omnibus allegations without specific
roles justify quashing of F.I.R . Recently, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana
and Ors. v. State of Telengana and Anr., reported in (2025) 3 SCC 735;
the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to its earlier decisions on the topic
summarised the position as follows :-
"27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a
criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without
specific allegations indicating their active involvement
should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact,
borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a
tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family
when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord.
Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by
concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form
the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise
caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions
and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of
innocent family members. In the present case, Appellants 2 to
6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have
been living in different cities and have not resided in the
matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 herein.
Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and
the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the
absence of specific allegations made against each of them.
*
33. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand
[Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] held that the courts have to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic realties into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment by the husband's close relatives
who had been living in different cities and never visited or
rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would
have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the
complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care
and circumspection. "
(Emphasis supplied)

20
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
43. This Court finds that even the Revisional Court abdicated its duty,
same as the learned Magistrate Trial Court. The Revisional Court
merely scanned through the order of the Magistrate and decided the
matter in a perfunctory manner, without even appreciating the basic
foundational testimony, which, according to this Court, was the basis for
issuance of the Summoning Order against the applicants/petitioners.
Both the Revisional Court and the Trial Court failed to understand the
adverse impact of the casual manner in which the matter was dealt with
them. Both the Courts failed to appreciate that initiation of criminal
proceedings against any person as a serious affair and may have grave
adversarial impact on their status and personal liberty.
44. As to the grave eventuality and adverse impact on the reputation
of a person, when a summon is issued for facing criminal trial, the
Supreme Court held in the case of   Birla Corporation Limited and Ors.
vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited and Ors.; reported in
MANU/SC/0714/2019; decided on 09.05.2019 as under :
“36. To be summoned/to appear before the Criminal Court as an
Accused is a serious matter affecting one's dignity and reputation
in the society. In taking recourse to such a serious matter in
summoning the Accused in a case filed on a complaint otherwise
than on a police report, there has to be application of mind as to
whether the allegations in the complaint constitute essential
ingredients of the offence and whether there are sufficient grounds
for proceeding against the Accused. In Punjab National Bank and
Ors. v. Surendra Prasad Sinha MANU/SC/0345/1992 : 1993 Supp
(1) SCC 499, it was held that the issuance of process should not
be mechanical nor should be made an instrument of oppression or
needless harassment. ”
45. Further, so far as the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel
for the Opposite Parties are concerned, this Court is of the considered
view that they pertain to a general clarification of the scope of exercise
of the High Court's inherent powers. Additionally, in Muskaan's case
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set-aside the impugned order of
the High Court, wherein the petition by the respondents under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C was allowed, resulting in the quashing of the criminal
proceedings against them, primarily on the ground that the High Court

21
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
had exceeded its scope while exercising its inherent powers and had
conducted a 'mini- trial'.
46. In the present case, the core issue that falls for consideration is the
sustainability of the applicants’/petitioners’ implication, particularly in
view of the conspicuous absence of any specific allegations against
them. Therefore, it would appear that the decisions relied upon by the
learned counsel for the Opposite Parties are of little assistance to their
case.
47. Considering the overall attending factors of the present matter, it
appears that the allegations levelled against the applicants are wholly
false and mala fide, and that this case has been lodged by the opposite
party No.2 to merely settle the score with his wife, with whom he is
fighting various matrimonial litigations. The allegations levelled by the
complainant and his witnesses are wholly improbable and do not inspire
any confidence. The impugned proceedings are manifestly attended with
mala fide intent and have been instituted with the ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the applicants due to personal grudges. The Trial
Court has not considered the matter in the correct perspective, and the
applicants have been summoned in a routine manner without
examination of the merits of the case.
48. Further, a perusal of the impugned Summoning Order also
indicates that the learned Magistrate has not discussed the ingredients of
the offences alleged, nor recorded satisfaction based on specific material
qua each accused. The order is cryptic and proceeds as if summoning
must automatically follow upon filing of a complaint and recording of
formal statements. Such an approach is contrary to the settled principle
that a Summoning Order must itself disclose an application of mind and
cannot be sustained when passed mechanically.
49. Having regard to the nature of accusations, the absence of specific
averments constituting the offences under Sections 322, 392, 452 and
506 I.P.C., and the mechanical nature of the impugned Summoning
Order, this Court is of the considered view that no prima facie case for

22
A482 No. - 2390 of 2017
proceeding against the applicants/petitioners is made out. The impugned
order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
50. Having heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and
upon careful examination of the complaint, the statements of witnesses
recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., and other materials placed on
record, this Court is of the considered view that no specific role or overt
act has been attributed to the applicants/petitioners in respect of the
alleged offences. Even on a prima facie assessment of the material
forming the basis of the complaint, the allegations do not disclose the
commission of any offence under the I.P.C.
51. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at the
conclusion that the present case falls within the exceptional category
contemplated under the Sixth illustration in   Bhajan Lal's case (supra) ,
justifying interference by this Court in the exercise of its inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 of the
B.N.S.S.) to prevent abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends
of justice.
52. Accordingly, for all the aforesaid reasons, the Judgment and Order
dated 08.03.2017, passed in Criminal Revision No. 31/2017 by the
District Judge, Balrampur and the Summoning Order dated 20.01.2016,
passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Balrampur, by means of which the
applicants/petitioners were summoned in Complaint Case No. 545/2014
under Sections 323,452,392,506 Ι.P.C., lodged at Police Station -
Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur, in the case of “ Manoj Kumar Tewari
versus Janardan Prasad Shukla and others ”, are hereby quashed .
53. The Application is allowed .
54. However, there shall be on order(s) as to costs.
(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.)
May 22, 2026 / MVS/-
Digitally signed by :-
MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench