8 August 2022


High Court of Allahabad

Amir and Ors. Vs. Seerat Jahan




High Court had power to prevent abuse and quash confronted proceeding, if any attempt is made to abuse the authority

The present petition has been filed to set aside the order convicting Petitioner under Section 376, 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the order in the revision arising therefrom, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The principle argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that, the criminal prosecution had been lodged in gross abuse of the process of Court and the criminal prosecution if allowed to continue would only defeat the ends of justice.

There can be no dispute that, the scope for interference in such proceedings is limited and has to remain confined to rare cases where without reaching any finding as to the truthfulness or correctness of the allegations made, it appears to the Court that the ends of the justice would be defeated if the proceedings were to be allowed to continue, or if a proceeding needs to be dropped to secure the ends of justice.

The criminal prosecution appears to be the only exercise to cause harassment or to persecute the Petitioners only to achieve the collateral purpose of success in the civil proceedings pertaining to the house property. Moreover the stand taken in the counter affidavit and the document annexed there to clearly and undoubtedly bring out the serious civil dispute existing between the parties with respect to the house property.

Thus referring to the case in the judgment in the case on State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devenderappa and another, it was observed that jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) exists to advance justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the High Court had the power to prevent such abuse and quash the confronted proceeding.

In the present case, upon appraisal of all facts and admitted material, it appears, that the prosecution story represents nothing more than an effort to wriggle out of the registered sale deed executed by the Rizwan Ali (father of the Respondent No. 2) in favour of the said Afzal Chaudhary and Mohd. Monis and to thereby escape the civil and criminal consequences being forced against Rizwan Ali by the Smt. Akleema Parveen who claims under a 'hibbanama' executed by the said Rizwan Ali. In view of the inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R., to allow such prosecution to proceed in the face of the case-diary material as has been noted above and the grave inconsistencies and contradictions that exist there in, would be allowed abuse of process of the Court and to allow the ends of justice to be defeated. Therefore, the Court has no hesitation in allowing the writ petition and quashing the prosecution. The present petition is accordingly allowed.


State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devenderappa and another, MANU/SC/0027/2002
: (2002) 3 SCC 89

Tags : Proceedings Quashing of Jurisdiction

Share :