Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that the high courts have to exercise their power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code sparingly but not when an apparently false case is lodged as a counterblast to a criminal case.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia allowed an appeal filed by one Ram Murti Shukla and another person against the Allahabad High Court's order rejecting their plea for quashing of summons issued against them by Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area/III Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in complaint case under Section 392 of IPC.

The complaint case was filed against appellant Shukla by his son-in-law. Upon an application filed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, summons were issued against them by the special court.

It was alleged the appellants had looted Rs 2650 from the complainant.

The appellants contended before the court that Shukla's daughter was married to the complainant son-in-law who is facing the FIR under Section 498A, 323, 506, 313, 377, IPC and under Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

They alleged that the present case was really a counterblast to the case against the complainant son-in-law.

According to the FIR lodged against the appellants, on August 27, 2019, the complainant was coming to Farrukhabad, when three unknown persons on the strength of their illegal weapons stopped him forcefully and after giving abuses, asked him to take back all the cases otherwise he will be killed. The appellants were alleged to have forcefully looted Rs 2650 cash from his pocket.

"We are conscious that normally the power under Section 482, CrPC is to be exercised sparingly but the very sequence of events stated herein in the complaint case filed makes it quite obvious that almost an unbelievable story has been made to somehow create a case under Section 392, IPC as a counter blast to the proceedings," the bench said.

The court, thus, quashed the summoning orders and allowed the appeal. Despite the service, the complainant failed to appear before the court.

Case Title: RAM MURTI SHUKLA & ANR V. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.