2026 INSC 806

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 1 of 19

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 5592 OF 2026)

ANITA MAURYA AND

OTHERS

… APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

AND ANOTHER

… RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal assails the judgment and

order dated 21.01.2026 (“impugned order”)

passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad (“High Court”) in Application under

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 2 of 19

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) No. 756 of 2026,

whereby the High Court declined to quash

Complaint Case No. 909 of 2021 (Shankar

Maurya v. Sunil Maurya and Others) and the

summoning order dated 10.02.2025 passed

therein by the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, First, Court No. 12, Jaunpur.

3. The appellants are eight in number, all

belonging to one family and residents of Village

Sohni, Police Station Kerakat, District Jaunpur,

Uttar Pradesh. Appellants 1 to 3, namely Anita

Maurya, Meera Maurya and Saroja Devi, are the

women of the household, and Appellants 4 to 8

are Sunil Maurya, Rajesh Maurya, Ajay Maurya,

Anil Maurya and Neeraj Maurya. Respondent

No. 1 is the State of Uttar Pradesh, and

Respondent No. 2, Shankar Maurya, is the

complainant.

4. It is not in dispute that a land dispute has long

subsisted between the two branches of the

family. That the substratum of the dispute is

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 3 of 19

civil is borne out by the record as the

respondent-complainant had himself earlier

invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court by

way of Public Interest Litigation No. 674 of 2021,

which came to be disposed of on 28.07.2021

with a direction to the Sub -Divisional

Magistrate, Kerakat, to decid e his

representation.

5. On 09.11.2020, the day of the incident that

forms the subject matter of the present

proceedings, Appellant No. 4, Sunil Maurya,

lodged First Information Report No. 405 of 2020

(“FIR”) at Police Station Kerakat against the

respondent-complainant and three others

under Sections 188, 323, 504, 506 and 342 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), alleging

assault and wrongful confinement. The

investigation culminated in chargesheet dated

30.11.2020 against those named, and the trial

arising therefrom has since commenced.

6. It was thereafter, in the year 2021, that the

respondent-complainant instituted Complaint

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 4 of 19

Case No. 909 of 2021 (“complaint”) in respect of

the very same incident of 09.11.2020, levelling

counter-allegations of assault and house -

trespass against the entire appellant-family,

including the three women. The complaint did

not disclose the pre-existing FIR lodged by the

appellants’ side on the day of the incident, or the

charge-sheet dated 30.11.2020 that had

followed upon it.

7. Vide order dated 10.02.2025, the Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, First, Court No. 12,

Jaunpur, after recording the statement of the

complainant under Section 200 and the

statements of two witnesses under Section 202

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(“CrPC”), summoned the appellants to face trial.

Appellants 4 to 8 were summoned under

Sections 323, 354 and 452 IPC, and Appellants

1 to 3, the three women, under Sections 323

and 452 IPC.

8. The appellants’ Criminal Revision Application

No. 191 of 2025 was dismissed on 26.11.2025

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 5 of 19

by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.S, 1

st

(Crimes Against Women), Jaunpur, who

affirmed the summoning order.

9. The appellants then invoked the inherent

jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528

BNSS. By the impugned order dated

21.01.2026, the High Court declined to quash

the complaint, the summoning order and the

proceedings taking the view that it could not be

said that no offence was made out, that the

contentions urged related to disputed questions

of fact which could not be adjudicated at that

stage, and that the power to quash was to be

exercised only where there was a failure of

justice or an abuse of process. The High Court,

however, granted liberty to the appellants to

seek discharge at the appropriate stage, and

issued consequential directions in regard to

bail. Aggrieved, the appellants are before this

court.

10. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellants

submits that the complaint is, in truth, a

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 6 of 19

counterblast to the FIR lodged by the appellants’

side on the very day of the incident and upon

which a charge-sheet had already been filed and

the trial had commenced. It is urged that the

complaint, though founded on the same

incident of 09.11.2020, came to be instituted

only in the year 2021, and that no explanation

was forthcoming for the intervening delay. It is

further pointed out that the complaint had

deliberately suppressed the antecedent FIR and

the charge-sheet, a suppression which,

according to the appellants, pointed to the want

of bona fides.

11. He further submits that the dispute between the

parties is, at its foundation, a civil dispute over

land, in which the entire family, including the

three women, has been arrayed as an

instrument of harassment. The appellants

contend that the summoning order had been

passed mechanically and without the

application of judicial mind, and that the

continuation of the complaint in these

circumstances is nothing but an abuse of the

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 7 of 19

process of the court, thereby praying for

quashing of complaint and consequent criminal

proceedings.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent-State and

the respondent-complainant, on the other hand,

submit that the statements recorded under

Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC prima facie

disclose the ingredients of the offences for which

the appellants have been summoned. It is

contended that the existence of a cross-version

does not efface an otherwise triable case, and

that the pendency of the appellants’ own FIR is

a matter of defence to be established at the trial

and not a ground for quashing the complaint

and the proceedings at the threshold.

13. It is further submitted that there are concurrent

findings of the Magistrate, the Revisional Court

and the High Court that a prima facie case is

made out against the appellants, and that at the

stage of summoning the Magistrate is not

required to weigh or evaluate the evidence

meticulously. On this basis it is contended that

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 8 of 19

the High Court had rightly declined to quash the

complaint and that the appeal be dismissed.

14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties

and perused the material on record. The

question that falls for our consideration is

whether the continuation of complaint against

the appellants would amount to an abuse of the

process of the court.

15. The inherent power preserved by Section 482 of

CrPC, now Section 528 of BNSS, is exercisable

to prevent the abuse of the process of any court

and to secure the ends of justice. In State of

Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

1, this Court set out the

illustrative categories in which the power may

be exercised, the relevant paragraph is

reproduced as follows:

“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 the

extraordinary power under Article 226 or the

inherent powers under Section 482 of the

Code which we have extracted and

reproduced above, we have given the following

1

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 9 of 19

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 suff iciently

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.

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 10 of 19

(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 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.”

16. The power is undoubtedly to be exercised

sparingly, with circumspection, and never to

throttle a legitimate prosecution or to conduct a

mini trial at the threshold. These self-imposed

restraints, however, do not require the court to

shut its eyes to a proceeding that is a manifest

abuse. Where mala fide or an oblique motive is

alleged, the court is not confined to the four

corners of the complaint. In Mahmood Ali v.

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 11 of 19

State of U.P.

2, this Court held that in such a

situation the court owes a duty to examine the

complaint with care and a little more closely,

and, where necessary, to read in between the

lines.

17. The same principle was reiterated in

Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P.

3, where it

was observed:

“30. At this stage, we would like to observe

something important. Whenever an accused

comes before the Court invoking either the

inherent powers under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal

proceedings quashed essentially on the

ground that such proceedings are manifestly

frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then

in such circumstances the Court owes a duty

to look into the FIR with care and a little more

closely. We say so because once the

complainant decides to proceed against the

accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking

personal vengeance, etc., then he would

ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well

drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The

complainant would ensure that the averments

made in the FIR/complaint are such that they

disclose the necessary ingredients to

constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it

will not be just enough for the Court to look

2

(2023) 10 SCC 544

3

2023 INSC 683

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 12 of 19

into the averments made in the

FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of

ascertaining whether the necessary

ingredients to constitute the alleged offence

are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious

proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look

into many other attending circumstances

emerging from the record of the case over and

above the averments and, if need be, with due

care and circumspection try to read in

between the lines. The Court while exercising

its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC

or Article 226 of the Constitution need not

restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is

empowered to take into account the overall

circumstances leading to the

initiation/registration of the case as well as

the materials collected in the course of

investigation. Take for instance the case on

hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over

a period of time. It is in the background of

such circumstances the registration of

multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby

attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance

out of private or personal grudge as alleged.”

(emphasis supplied)

18. It is equally settled that a dispute essentially

civil in character is not to be permitted to be

clothed as a criminal offence, and that the

criminal process is not a substitute for the

remedies available in law. In G. Sagar Suri v.

State of U.P.

4, this Court cautioned that before

issuing process a criminal court must exercise

4

(2000) 2 SCC 636

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 13 of 19

a great deal of caution, and that it is for the

court to see whether a matter essentially of a

civil nature has been given the cloak of a

criminal offence.

19. Delay in setting the criminal law in motion,

when it is deliberate and unexplained, is a

circumstance that may itself justify the

quashing of the proceeding. In Kishan Singh

(Dead) through Legal Representatives v.

Gurpal Singh

5, this Court observed:

“22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging

an FIR, the court has to look for a plausible

explanation for such delay. In the absence of

such an explanation, the delay may be fatal.

The reason for quashing such proceedings

may not be merely that the allegations were

an afterthought or had given a coloured

version of events. In such cases the court

should carefully examine the facts before it for

the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed

to succeed before the civil court may initiate

criminal proceedings just to harass the other

side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior

motive of wreaking vengeance on the other

party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants

should not be permitted to give vent to their

frustrations by cheaply invoking the

jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court

proceedings ought not to be permitted to

degenerate into a weapon of harassment and

persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is

5

(2010) 8 SCC 775

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 14 of 19

lodged clearly with a view to spite the other

party because of a private and personal

grudge and to enmesh the other party in long

and arduous criminal proceedings, the court

may take a view that it amounts to an abuse

of the process of law in the facts an d

circumstances of the case.”

20. This principle has been applied by this Court

very recently in Nazibul Rahim Khan v. State

of U.P.

6, where, this Court while setting aside

an order of the same High Court , held that

although civil and criminal remedies may co-

exist upon the same cause of action, there ought

not to be an unreasonable or inordinate gap

between the institution of the two, the time-

factor being an indicator of whether the criminal

proceeding is genuine and bona fide or a mere

pressure tactic, and that the complainant is

obliged to satisfactorily explain the delay. This

Court there expressly approved and applied

Kishan Singh (supra).

21. A complaint that suppresses a pre-existing FIR

lodged by the accused in respect of the same

incident, and that is instituted after such report

6

2026 INSC 619

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 15 of 19

has ripened into a charge-sheet, bears the

hallmark of a retaliatory counterblast. In

Anukul Singh v. State of U.P.

7, this Court

quashed the proceedings, holding that the plea

that the case was a retaliatory counter-blast to

the proceedings legitimately initiated by the

accused carried substantial weight, that a

proceeding so maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive falls within categories (1) and (7)

of Bhajan Lal (supra), and that the

suppression of a material antecedent

proceeding is itself indicative of the want of bona

fides.

22. Turning to the facts in the case in hand, the

chronology is not in dispute. The incident is that

of 09.11.2020. On that very day the appellants’

side lodged the FIR, and a charge-sheet followed

on 30.11.2020, upon which the trial has

commenced. The complaint of the respondent,

founded on the identical incident, was

instituted only in the year 2021, and no

explanation has been offered for the intervening

7

2025 INSC 1153

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 16 of 19

delay. Such deliberate and unexplained delay,

set against a subsisting antecedent proceeding

on the same facts, is precisely the circumstance

which, in Kishan Singh (supra) and Nazibul

Rahim Khan (supra), was held to point to an

oblique motive rather than to a genuine

grievance.

23. Another aspect which requires consideration is

the matter of suppression. The complaint as

filed by the respondent No.2, did not disclose

the pre-existing FIR or the charge-sheet dated

30.11.2020. When read a little more closely, the

sequence of events assumes significance. The

complainant, whose own side was already facing

a charge-sheeted FIR arising out of the same

occurrence, set the criminal law in motion

afresh against the entire opposing family,

including the three women, over the identical

incident. A proceeding of this character answers

to the description of the retaliatory counterblast

that was deprecated in Anukul Singh Case

(supra).

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 17 of 19

24. Lastly, there remains the civil substratum of the

controversy. The dispute between the parties

has, at its root, a long-standing quarrel over

land, agitated by the complainant even by way

of a public interest litigation. To permit a private

complaint, belatedly instituted and suppressing

the earlier FIR, to proceed against an entire

family in these circumstances would be to allow

a matter essentially civil to be pursued through

the criminal process as an instrument of

harassment, a course against which this Court

in G. Sagar Suri case (supra) cautions. The

summoning of the entire family, including the

three women, upon a solitary and belated

version, does not reflect the careful application

of mind by the Magistrate that the issuance of

process demands.

25. The High Court confined itself to the bare

averments of the complaint and treated the

material placed by the appellants as raising only

disputed questions of fact for trial. Where,

however, the indicia of mala fide and abuse of

process appear on the record, the court is not

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 18 of 19

merely entitled but obliged to look beyond the

averments and to prevent the perpetuation of

the abuse. Taking the cumulative effect of the

unexplained delay, the suppression of the

antecedent FIR, the counter-blast character of

the complaint and the essentially civil nature of

the dispute, we are of the considered view that

the case falls squarely within categories (1), (5)

and (7) of Bhajan Lal Case (supra), and that

the continuation of the complaint against the

appellants would be nothing but an abuse of the

process of the court.

26. In view of the foregoing discussion, the

impugned order dated 21.01.2026 passed by

the High Court cannot be sustained and is set

aside.

27. The appeal is allowed. Complaint Case No. 909

of 2021, pending on the file of the Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, First, Court No. 12,

Jaunpur, together with the summoning order

dated 10.02.2025 and all proceedings

consequent thereto, stands quashed.

Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No.5592/2026 Page 19 of 19

28. We clarify that nothing in this judgment shall be

construed as an expression of opinion on the

merits of First Information Report No. 405 of

2020 or the connected charge-sheet, or on the

civil dispute between the parties, all of which

shall be dealt with on their respective merits in

accordance with law, uninfluenced by this

judgment.

29. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

.……..………..………………..J.

[ SANJAY KAROL ]

.……..………..………………..J.

[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]

NEW DELHI;

JULY 23, 2026.