HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3180 of 2023 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Triveni Saran Rai, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. 3. Sri Aravind Kumar Tripathi, Sri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Sri Hemant Kumar, Sri Sudhanshu Ranjan, Sri Vipin Kumar Mishra, learned counsels for the opposite party no. 2 are not present even in the revised call. Despite their names being printed in the cause list, there is no vakalatnama on the record. Office to trace it out and place it on the record and make a note about it in the order sheet. 4. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned summoning order dated 17.5.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ F.T.C.. Jaunpur in Complaint Case No.55/2019, Vindhyavasani Vs. Ramakant, Police Station Nevadia, District Jaunpur, by which the applicant/accused is summoned, under section-506 IPC. This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased stay the further proceeding in Complaint Case No.55/2019, Vindhyavasani Vs. Ramakant, Under Section-506 IPC, Police Station Nevadia, District Jaunpur pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C., Jaunpur during the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raj Kumar Kesari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aravind Kumar Tripathi, Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, G.A., Hemant Kumar, Sudhanshu Ranjan, Vipin Kumar Mishra Ramakant Mishra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) pendency of the present application to meet the ends of justice otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, and/or pass such further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." 5. On 22.10.2024 the following order was passed by another Bench of this Court:- "Case called out in revised list. Mr. Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party No. 1 are present, but no one appears on behalf of opposite party No. 2 whereas names of Mr. Aravind Kumar Tripathi and Mr. Hemant Kumar, learned counsel, are shown as counsel for opposite party in the cause list. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that vide order dated 15.02.2023, opposite party No. 2 was directed to file counter affidavit within six weeks, but till date, no counter affidavit has been filed. Let this matter be listed in the first week of January, 2025 for final hearing. Interim order, granted earlier, is extended until further order of this Court." 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has not received any counter affidavit till date by any of the respondents. 7. I.A. of the case on the web-portal also does not show filing of any counter affidavit by any of the respondents in the present matter. On 22.10.2024 it was ordered that the matter be listed for final hearing. The Court thus proceeds to hear the matter. 8. The facts of the case are that a complaint dated 02.03.2019 was filed by the opposite party no.2 for offences under Sections 336, 504, 506 I.P.C. against the applicant alleging therein that he is a resident of village- Gopalapur, Police Station- Rampur, District Jaunpur. His relative is Vijay Shankar Seth a resident of Jaunpur. His younger son Raj@Jay Shankar who lives in Varanasi and has a mobile repairing shop. He was the mediator in the marriage of Raj with Poonam Devi which was solemnized on 12.5.2018. On information about marriage of Raj, the applicant Ramakant along with some other persons came to him on 19.5.2018 and has stated that his daughter is in love with Raj and wants to marry him. She has also got his name tattooed on her hand and despite counseling A482 No. 3180 of 2023 2 her, she is not understanding and wants to marry him else she would commit suicide. When the complainant told them that Raj is already married, they threatened him of falsely implicating him. They even threatened him that if his daughter dies then he would not leave them alive. The statement of the opposite party no. 2 was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of his witnesses namely Vijay Shankar as P.W.-1 and Smt. Sita Devi as P.W.-2 were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The court of Civil Judge (S.D.)/FTC, Jaunpur summoned the applicant for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. Thus the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant before this Court with the prayers as aforesaid. 9. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that no offence whatsoever is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that the complaint has been filed on 02.03.2019 for an incident alleged to have taken place on 19.05.2018 which is filed after an unexplained delay of about 10 months. It is submitted that even from perusal of the complaint it would go to show that threat as alleged to have been extended, was of falsely implicating the complainant and further it was stated that if his daughter dies, then he would not leave him alive, which does not make out a case under Section 506 I.P.C. since threat to life as per complainant, was extended subject to action taken by the daughter of the complainant. It is submitted that thus ingredients of Section 506 I.P.C. are not made out. It is submitted that the present proceedings initiated with malafide intentions and are an abuse of process of court. 10. Learned counsel has relied upon para-102 of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others: 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335 and has submitted that one of the categories being category no.7 in the said judgement for quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are of malafides intentions and counterblast. Para-102 of the said judgement reads as under:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of A482 No. 3180 of 2023 3 the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a 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. (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 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 A482 No. 3180 of 2023 4 where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with 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." 11. It is argued that as such the proceedings as initiated against the applicant are clearly abuse of process of law and thus the same be quashed. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing and the submission of learned counsel for the applicant. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the complaint has been filed on 02.03.2019 for an incident alleged to have taken place on 19.05.2018 which is filed after an unexplained delay of about 10 months. A perusal of the complaint would go to show that threat as alleged to have been extended, was of falsely implicating the complainant and further it was stated that if his daughter dies, then he would not leave him alive, does not make out a case under Section 506 I.P.C. since threat to life as per complainant was subject to action taken by the daughter of the applicant. It is thus clear that ingredients of Section 506 I.P.C. are not made out. 14. In view of the above discussion and the laws laid down by the Apex Court, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserved to be allowed and thus the same is allowed. 15. The impugned summoning order is hereby quashed. 16. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. September 11, 2026 Naresh A482 No. 3180 of 2023 5 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad