HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7929 of 2017 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed today in the Court by learned counsel for the applicants. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mirza Faheem Beg, learned counsel for opposite party and Mr. M.K. Uapadhaya, learned AGA for the State. 3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charegsheet dated 06.12.2016 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.25 of 2017, (State Vs. Guru Bux and another) arising out of Case Crime No.727 of 2016, under Sections- 376D, 506 of IPC, Police Station Allahganj, District Shahjahanpur. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel of the applicants that the FIR has been lodged against the opposite party no.2 on 11.09.2016 against the applicants with the allegation that the applicants have committed rape with opposite party no.2. It is further submitted that the applicant no.1 is the husband of opposite party no.2 and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2003. It is further submitted that from the said marriage they have two children. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 has went away from the house of applicant no.1 with one Ajay Sharma on 14.07.2015 and in this regard an N.C.R. being N.C.R. No.42 of 2015 under Section 498 IPC Police Station- Allahganj District Shahjahanpur was registered by the applicant no.1. Later on, the said N.C.R. was converted in the first information report, which was registered as Case Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nand Lal Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Kumar Shukla, G.A., Mirza Faheem Beg Guru Bux Singh And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P.And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Crime No.1157 of 2015 and during the course of investigation the statement of opposite party no.2 was recorded and in her statement she specifically stated that she is living with Ajay Sharma. The final report has been submitted in the aforesaid Case Crime No.1157 of 2015. In the present case, the mother and brother of opposite party no.2 have given the affidavit before the Superintendent of Police on 17.09.2016 stating that the false and concocted case has been lodged against the applicants; however during the course of investigation, statements of the victim as well as witnesses have been recorded. It is also submitted that without considering the affidavit submitted by the mother and brother of opposite party no.2 the chargesheet has been submitted against the applicants under Sections- 376D and 506 IPC. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. 5. Learned AGA as well as counsel for opposite party no.2 has opposed the prayer with the submission that there is specific allegation has been made in statement of opposite party no.2 recorded during the course of investigation against the applicants. There is no variation in the version of FIR or the statement of opposite party no.2. The chargesheet has been filed after proper investigation. It is further submitted that the cognizance has already been taken in the matter. It is also submitted that there is material evidence on record to proceed with the trial. It is further submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and no interference is called for. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire evidence. 7. A perusal of the first information report and the statement of the opposite party no.2 would demonstrate that there are specific and separate allegations against the applicants. After investigation chargesheet has also been filed against the present applicants and cognizance have been taken by the concerned learned Magistrate. 8. It is well settled law that inherent power to quash the proceedings is very limited. The Hon'be Apex Court has consistently held that serious offence like rape/gang rape are matter against society and cannot be quashed only on a "weak" statement from witnesses. In case of sexual A482 No. 7929 of 2017 2 assault the testimony of the victim is important, even if other witnesses do not support the prosecution version or give contrary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the case cannot be summarily quashed, if the victim's statement indicates commission of the offence. Here in the present case, there are specific allegation made against the present applicants, the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded by the learned Magistrate concerned, even there is contradiction but victim/opposite party has made specific allegation against the present applicants and after investigation, chargesheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer concerned and on the basis of chargesheet, the learned Magistrate concerned has taken cognizance vide order dated 23.01.2017. It also appears that only the chargesheet has been challenged in the present application, while the cognizance has also been taken by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 23.01.2017. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Muskan Vs. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355, held that on the aspect of the powers of the Courts under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, it is settled that at the stage of quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted as under:- "26. Further, this Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani12 held that: “13. There can be no dispute over the proposition that inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. There is no denial of the fact that the power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide but it needs no special emphasis to state that conferment of wide power requires the Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court." 10. In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that quashing of a charge sheet is not proper where a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the concerned Investigating Officer, particularly in cases requiring detailed appreciation A482 No. 7929 of 2017 3 of evidence and in cases involving heinous and non-compoundable offences which affect society at large 11. As is evident, all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the present applicants are not made out. Hence, prayer made in the application is refused. 11. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed leaving it open for the applicants to avail the remedy as permissible under law, if so advise. April 9, 2026 S.K. A482 No. 7929 of 2017 4 (Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- SWEETY KANOJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad