AHMAD ALI QURAISHI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-2020-1-95
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 30,2020

Ahmad Ali Quraishi Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

JEETENDRA NAVLANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-4-221] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJMOHAN K.S VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-4-128] [REFERRED TO]
ROCHISH MATHUR VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
SHUEB MAHMOOD KIDWAI VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-116] [REFERRED TO]
SANKARAMANCHI SATYANARAYANA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
NAND KISHORE PANDEY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-6-34] [REFERRED TO]
SAMBIT PATRA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
SUKESH N. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-7-129] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR MONDAL @ RAJA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2021-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
ATUL KUMAR SINGH TOMAR VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
K.NAGESWARA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2022-1-61] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. - (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.
(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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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.

(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 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 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 Rights Commission, the Superintendent of Police directed 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 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 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 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.

(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 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.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.