AHMAD ALI QURAISHI AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

170                       [2020]
               SUPREME COURT     1 S.C.R. 170
                              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 power
      of High Court – Appellants-accused and respondent no.2-
      complainant belong to same family and are neighbours – In 2015,
C
      father of the accused filed suit against the complainant for partition
      of properties which led to several altercations among the parties –
      On 29.08.16, complainant filed application u/s.156(3), CrPC
      alleging that on 19.07.16 when his daughters had gone to public
      hand pump outside their house for fetching water, the accused
D     persons indulged in indecent gestures towards them and had also
      beaten them – It was further alleged that on the same day, the accused
      persons entered the house of complainant and started beating him
      and his daughters – Application rejected – Another complaint was
      filed levelling the same allegations made in earlier application –
      Sessions Judge summoned the appellants – Appellants filed
E
      application u/s.482, CrPC – Dismissed – On appeal, held: Dispute
      regarding property between complainant and father of the appellant
      was pending much before the alleged incident dtd. 19.07.16 – Fact
      that on the same date of the incident, the Police visited the spot and
      drew proceeding u/ss.151, 107 & 116 CrPC against both the parties
F     and they were required to maintain peace is a clear pointer to the
      nature of quarrel between them – It was more than six weeks
      thereafter that for the first time an application u/s.156(3), CrPC
      was filed by the complainant against the accused – Further, Sessions
      Judge in his summoning order did not believe the second incident
      in the complaint alleging that the appellants, their father and other
G
      accused entered into the house and started beating the complainant
      and his daughters – Non believing on one part of the alleged incident
      in the complaint throws shadow of doubt on the earlier part of the
      incident – On facts, criminal proceedings were initiated by

H
                                       170
AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                         171


complainant with an ulterior motive due to personal grudge – High        A
Court although noticed the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhajan
Lal case but did not examine the facts as to whether present is a
case which falls in any of the category enumerated therein – Present
case clearly falls in category VII of Bhajan Lal’s case – High Court
failed to exercise jurisdiction u/s.482, CrPC – Criminal proceedings
                                                                         B
against the appellants are quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.323,
354, 452, 504, 506 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012– s.4, 7 & 8.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD : 1.1 The present is a case where parties are related        C
and are neighbours. Civil dispute regarding property is going on
between father of the accused and the complainant. It is clear
that dispute regarding property between complainant and father
of the appellant is pending much before the alleged incident dated
19.07.16. The fact that on the same date of the incident Police
visited the spot and has drawn proceeding under Section 151,             D
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 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          E
court of Session Judge. One more fact which transpire from order
of Session Judge summoning the accused need to be noted. 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         F
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 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     G
a shadow of doubt on the earlier part of the incident as alleged.
The session judge in the impugned judgment has not taken note
of the Civil Suit pending between the parties. [Paras 20-22]
[183-E-H; 184-A-B]

                                                                         H
172           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A            1.3 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 in the impugned judgment but did not
      examine the facts of the case as to whether present is a case
B
      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. In permitting Criminal proceedings against the
C     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.
      The criminal proceedings initiated by Complaint Case No.1 of
      2017 are quashed. [Paras 23-25] [184-C-E]
D
            State 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 and
            another (2017) 13 SCC 369 : [2017] 6 SCR 922 ; State
            of 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
      [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259       relied on               Para 10
      [2017] 6 SCR 922              relied on               Para 11
      [1977] 3 SCR 113              relied on               Para 12
      [2002] 1 SCR 275              relied on               Para13
G
      [2009] 3 SCR 326              relied on               Para 15




H
AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                                  173


      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal                           A
No. 138 of 2020.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Application u/s 482 No. 5890 of 2018.
      S. K. Verma, Rajan Kumar Chaurasia, Divyansh Rai and Sandeep
Singh, Advs. for the Appellants.                                                  B

     Garvesh Kabra, Surjeet Singh, Anubhav T. Mishra, Lagnesh
Mishra and V. N. Raghupathy, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.                                                           C
       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 proceedings of Complaint
Case No.1 of 2017 has been rejected. Aggrieved by the order of the
High Court, this appeal has been filed.                                           D
      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             E
            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          F
           went on the spot of incident on 19.07.2016 itself and initiated
           proceedings under Section 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.            G
            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
                                                                                  H
174      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A          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 towards them and
           started pressing their breasts. The daughter Firdaus Bano
B
           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
C          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
D          Registered Post to Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, D.G.P.,
           Lucknow and 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.
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 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
F         of the Police Station proceeding under Sections 151, 107 and
          116 Cr.P.C. has been initiated in respect of the said incident.
      (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
G          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
H
AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                               175
             [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

            Rights Commission, the Superintendent of Police directed           A
            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 including the
            daughters of complainant Firdaus Bano and Gulishtan Bano
                                                                               B
            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           C
             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             D
           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.                                         E
       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     F
property dispute pending in the court of Civil Judge, the complainants
have filed frivolous complaints against the appellants and other 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             G
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
                                                                               H
176            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A     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.
            5. It is submitted that High Court failed to consider the sequence
B     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
C     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
D     of the High Court and submits that High Court has rightly refused to
      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.

E           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
      Annexure-CA/2.

F            9. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
      parties and perused the record.
             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
G
      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
H
AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                               177
             [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

categories of cases where power can be exercised under Article 226/            A
Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court for quashing the criminal
Proceedings. Paragraph 102 is as follows: -
      “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     B
      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   C
      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    D
         or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
         accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
         offence or make out a case against the accused.
            (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
         other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose         E
         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          F
         or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
         do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a
         case against the accused.
             (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
         cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence,      G
         no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order
         of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
         Code.

                                                                               H
178            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A                  (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
B               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/o where there is specific
                provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
                redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
C                  (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
D     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.

E           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 three-Judge 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
F     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
G           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. The
            saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and
            criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public
H
AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                              179
             [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be                A
      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
                                                                              B
      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,               C
      between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to
      appreciate 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 the
ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. By analysing the scope of Section 482            D
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         E
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    F
      lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo
      res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything
      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   G
      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
                                                                              H
180             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A           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
B
            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
C           alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations
            are accepted in toto.”
            14. Further in para 8 the following was stated: (Devendrappa
      case, SCC p. 95)
                “8. … Judicial process should not be an instrument of
D           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
E           time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to
            short-circuit 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
F           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
      Court where application was under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal
G     proceedings under Section 498-A 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
H
AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                             181
             [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

of the complaint discloses commission of alleged offences and, therefore,    A
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
                                                                             B
quashed the proceedings.
      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: -
                                                                             C
      “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     D
      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        E
      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 under Category 7 as enumerated
      in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following
      effect: (SCC p. 379, para 102)
                                                                             F
         “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.”
                                                                             G
         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
                                                                             H
182            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A           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
B     that the present is a case where parties 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
C     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
D           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 proceeding under Sections 151, 107,116 CrPC
E           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
F           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
G           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
H
AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                             183
             [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      daughters of applicant has not come to light. During enquiry,          A
      applicant failed to submit oral/documentary evidence whatsoever.
      Other allegations levelled by the applicant have not been proved
      from 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.
                                                                             B
      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            C
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., however, observed that the         D
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     E
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 parties. It was more      F
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        G
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
                                                                             H
184             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 1 S.C.R.


A     complainant and his daughters. Sessions Judge in his summonig order
      did not believe the 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.
B           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
C     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 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
D     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
E     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 Case No.1 of 2017, Sajjad Quraishi versus Anwarul
      Haq Quraishi are quashed.
F

      Divya Pandey                                                  Appeal allowed.




G




H