Allahabad High Court
Ramveer Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 March, 2020
Author: Ram Krishna Gautam
Bench: Ram Krishna Gautam
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4478 of 2020 Applicant :- Ramveer Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Avanish Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Balbeer Singh Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicants, Ramveer Singh and Smt. Asha Singh, with a prayer for setting aside entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.63215/2013, State vs. Rahul and others, arising out of Case Crime No.766 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304-B, 323 and 328 of IPC, read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act of Police Station-Sikandara, District Agra, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.
Learned counsel for applicants argued that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. They are of no concern with the occurrence. They have been enlarged on anticipatory bail, considering involvement of applicants in the alleged occurrence, wherein, specific accusation of giving poison was against husband of the deceased, who was having separate living with the deceased. Applicants were not having any concern with their affairs. They have been falsely implicated only because of being parents of the husband. No complaint of dowry or cruelty with regard to it, before registration of this case crime number, was there. Applicant No.1, Ramveer, had informed the informant about closing of door from inside and not opening of it by the deceased and her husband. They are of no criminal antecedents, but, the Investigating Officer has submitted chargesheet, wherein, cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, concerned, which was an abuse of process of law. Hence, for avoiding abuse of process of law, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed, with above prayer.
Learned counsel for the informant, as well as, learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application with this contention that unnatural death at nuptial house, that too, within two years of marriage, coupled with a complaint of demand of dowry and cruelty with regard to it by husband and his parents, is there. Even soon before this occurrence, deceased was taken to her house by her husband, where, she was badly assaulted for dowry and in this occurrence she was administered poison by her in-laws. Hence, this Application merits dismissal.
Admittedly, report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is with this finding that there was insecticide in the Viscera, sent for forensic analysis and in autopsy examination, lungs and other vital organs were found to be damaged and the death was under unnatural circumstances, within two years of marriage, at nuptial house. Applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the husband. Complaint of demand of dowry, coupled with cruelty, with regard to it was there in the statement, recorded, under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Hence, under all above facts and circumstances, this Court, in exercise of inherent power, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon factual matrix, like, separate living and having no concern with the affairs of deceased and their son etc., as these all fall under the domain of the Trial court, and as such, under all above facts and circumstances, no case for interference, by this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is called for.
Apex Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844, has propounded that "While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court". In another subsequent judgment, in the case of Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474, Hon'ble Apex Court propounded that "Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which after filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, or to delay the trial which enable to win over the witness or may disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of Justice". In again yet another judgment, in the case of Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781, the Apex Court has propounded "Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself." While interpreting this jurisdiction of High Court Apex Court, in the case of Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296, has propounded "High Court can exercise jurisdiction suo motu in the interest of justice. It can do so while exercising other jurisdictions such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No formal application for invoking inherent jurisdiction is necessary. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters. It can as well be exercised in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings".
Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, Apex Court, in the case of Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494, has propounded "To prevent abuse of the process of the Court, High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482, could quash the proceedings, but, there would be justification for interference only when the complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous vexatious or oppressive" as well as in the case of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1, Apex Court propounded "In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not".Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above.
In view of what has been discussed above, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., merits dismissal and it stands dismissed accordingly.
However, if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below, their Applications for Bail shall be considered and decided, expeditiously, in accordance with provisions of law.
Order Date :- 3.3.2020 bgs/