AHMAD ALI QURAISHI AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 170 · Decided: 30-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
AHMAD ALI QURAISHI AND ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2020)
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,
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
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
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
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
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
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 170
170
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
171
complainant with an ulterior motive due to personal grudge – High
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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]
AHMAD ALI QURAISHI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
172
SUPREME COURT 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.