Allahabad High Court
Anita And Anr vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 12 September, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 ALL 3753
Author: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?A.F.R. Court No. - 48 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31786 of 2018 Applicant :- Anita And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Vajpeyi,Syed Imran Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet dated 21.7.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 19315 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 240 of 2018, State of U.P. versus Manoj alias Monu and others, u/s 306 IPC, P.S. Ecotech-III, District Gautam Budh Nagar pending in the court below.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned AGA.
Entire record has been perused.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the allegations as have been made do not constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC and as more than seven years had elapsed after the marriage, therefore, no legal presumption against the accused persons can be drawn. Learned counsel for the applicants has further contended that there is no direct evidence on the basis of which it may be said that the applicants abetted or instigated the commission of suicide. The argument is that the deceased was in the phase of depression as a result of which she had committed suicide with nobody being contributory from the accused side to have caused it.
Many other contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
The allegations, in brief, as reflect from perusal of the record are that the daughter of opposite party no.2 namely, Sweeti alias Mona aged about 27 years was married to the son of applicant no.1 and brother of applicant no.2 namely, Manoj alias Monu 10.11.2010 with Hindu rites and rituals and the opposite party no.2 had given dowry according to his status. But the In-laws were not satisfied with the gifts given at the time of marriage and as a result of which they started committing torture upon the deceased. Even the husband used to mount pressure upon deceased to bring Rs. 10 lakhs. Attempts to make good sense prevail upon the husband failed even though according to the record, a number of times panchayat was held in this regard. Interveners of the panchayat also tried to make good sense prevail but the same appear to have brought no result. Father-in-law Sohan Lal, mother-in-law Anita, husband Manoj alias Monu and brother-in-laws (Devars) Harendra and Vishnu continued to inflict cruelty upon her day and night according to the statement of Meera Devi, the mother of the victim. The deceased used to narrate her woeful tale to her mother and it was conveyed to her mother that either the deceased Sweeti would be some day consigned to flames or would be hanged. The threatening menace of contracting another marriage was also kept hanging on her head. It further transpires from the allegations that at some stage of her disgruntled marital life she was thrown in the street and thrashed by the accused and the deceased daughter had to call the police by dialing 100 number. By this protesting conduct of the deceased the accused persons got further indignated and mounted up the ill-treatment upon her. It is further alleged that on 25.6.2018 the deceased made a call, which appears to be her last call, conveying to her parental side that she was being exceedingly tortured and harassed. According to the mother of the deceased, hearing this from her daughter she called up applicant no.1, the mother-in-law on which she was stopped from coming to her daughter. Some further details of telephonic conversations that took place with the deceased have been given in the statement of the mother. But soon thereafter the news of conveying the unnatural death of the deceased came. So far as the submissions of applicants' counsel relating to the non-availability of evidence of instigation is concerned, it goes without saying that it is not possible in all cases to get direct evidence of abetment, specially, so, in cases where the deceased dies within the precincts of her matrimonial home and where in ordinary course the parental side people can not be expected to be present. The exact details of the happenings at the eleventh hour precipitating the end can be well known to the accused persons only who lived in that house but the circumstances preceding the death and the history of the previous events do constitute incriminating circumstantial evidence on the basis of which inference of guilt may be drawn in given cases. It also goes without saying that it is also quite possible that the accused persons may create such circumstances and inflict so much torture upon the daughter-in-law that she may feel impelled to take the fatal extreme step. The abetment or instigation can also be inferred by the conduct of the accused persons. There is no dearth of evidence in the present case showing the inhuman cruel treatment meted out to the deceased and there is ample evidence to demonstrate that she was given a completely hostile ambience in her matrimonial home and she was hardly getting any respite from any corner. This is not a lone story of one individual woman but it is a common sight in our society to see such inhuman behaviour being handed down to the daughter-in-laws. The legislature has been driven to introduce new laws in order to prove equal to the social challenge. But it appears that we have still to go far before we can see a woman becoming free of such deadly predicaments. There appears to be abundant evidence in the present case to show how immense cruelty was heaped upon the deceased and it does not appear to be a case where the deceased may be said to have committed suicide as an over-reaction or for being disproportionately ultra sensitive. The evidence indicates that in the given circumstances of this case she was driven to commit suicide in the wake of persistent demand of dowry and the perennial sub-human treatment meted out to the deceased consistently for a long period of time. The events which immediately preceded her death also show the savage inhuman treatment to which she was subjected and which in the given case appear to be tantamount to abetment, if not directly then at least by conduct and implication.
The submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.
In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case after surrendering in the court below an application for bail is moved on behalf of the accused within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.
In the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the accused in the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to.
With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 12.9.2018 CPP/-