Allahabad High Court
Sahaj Ram Yadav @ Pappu And Ors. vs The State Of U.P And Anr. on 5 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2342
Author: Rajendra Kumar-Iv
Bench: Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH AFR Court No. - 27 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 757 of 2013 Applicant :- Sahaj Ram Yadav @ Pappu And Ors. Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicants Sahaj Ram Yadav @ Pappu and four others approached this Court for quashing order dated 22.12.2012 passed by CJM, Faizabad in Complaint Case No.108 of 2012, under Sections 498A/323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad and entire proceedings thereof.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are that Smt. Gudda filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against Sahaj Ram Yadav, Ram Dev, Raghupat, Shanker and Sunita stating that her marriage took place with Sahaj Ram as per Hindu rites and sufficient Dowry, according to her capability, was given to her in laws at the time of marriage. Complaint further recites that her in-laws started demanding Rs. 2,00,000/-, one gold chain as Dowry and harassing her by saying that Sahaj Ram, her husband, is a Government Servant. Unfortunately she is issue-less, so accused-applicants started abusing and torturing her. On 5.8.2009, she was kicked out her house snatching her entire belongings. She was medically examined in the district hospital, Faizabad.
3. Application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. came to be registered as complaint case. Magistrate recorded the statement of victim-complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and made an enquiry by recording statement of Gayatri and Laxmi under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and found prima-facie case and sufficient ground for proceeding, summoned the accused-applicants for facing trial under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Kotwali Nagar District Faizabad, vide impugned order dated 22.12.2012.
4. Feeling aggrieved with the summoning order, accused-applicants filed present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order as well as complaint.
5. I have heard Sri Alok Saxena, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Ravi Singh Shisodia, learned AGA for State.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that no case is made out against the applicants. They have falsely been implicated for the purpose of harassment and humiliation. Trial Court has not applied its mind in passing the impugned order. There is no prima facie evidence or case to summon the applicants for facing trial. It has further been submitted that Opposite Party No.2-Smt. Gudda is not a legally wedded wife of Shahaj Ram. Applicant Shahaj Ram is married to one Mamta and he is a Government Servant. Seeing the economical position of applicant No.1, Opposite Party No.-2, Smt. Gudda, falsely claimed to be wedded wife of applicant. It has further been submitted by him that entire story of complainant is false and fabricated. She has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. prior to this complaint in which applicant denied the marriage, thereafter, she field the impugned complaint against the applicant and his other family members.
7. When questioned, learned counsel for applicant is not in a position to state as to what happened in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
8. Learned AGA for State vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the complaint case and submitted that complainant-respondent Smt. Gudda is legally wedded wife of applicant-Sahaj Ram Yadav. Due to complainant being issue-less. Applicant and his other family members harassed and tortured her in order to demand of Dowry. Factum of marriage is the subject matter of evidence, which could not be determined at the stage of 482 Cr.P.C. Only allegation of complaint is to be seen at this stage and it cannot be said that no case is made out or no prima facie evidence or ground for proceeding are there.
9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the records.
10. Before I enter into the facts of the present case it is necessary to consider the ambit and scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vested in the High Court. Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
11. It is settled that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine manner, but it is for limited purposes, namely, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
12. Time and again, Apex Court and various High Courts, have reminded when exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified, which cannot be placed in straight jacket formula, but one thing is very clear that it should not preampt a trial and cannot be used in a routine manner so as to cut short the entire process of trial before the Courts below. If from a bare perusal of first information report or complaint, it is evident that it does not disclose any offence at all or it is frivolous, collusive or oppressive from the face of it, the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but it should be exercised sparingly. This will not include as to whether prosecution is likely to establish its case or not, whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained, or the other circumstances, which would not justify exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I need not go into various aspects in detail but it would be suffice to refer a few recent authorities dealing all these matters in detail, namely, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296, Hamida vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 474, Dr. Monica Kumar and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 781, M.N. Ojha and Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 682, State of A.P. vs. Gourishetty Mahesh and Ors. JT 2010 (6) SC 588 and Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 74.
13. Court, time and again, has examined scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and laid down several principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, reported in, 1977 (2) SCC 699, the Court held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
14. In State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Court has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Although in the above case Court was considering the power of the High Court to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR, the case arose out of an FIR registered under Section 161, 165 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Court elaborately considered the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C./ Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the context of quashing the proceedings in criminal investigation. After noticing various earlier pronouncements of Court, Court enumerated certain Categories of cases by way of illustration where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or secure ends of justice. Paragraph 102 which enumerates 7 categories of cases where power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are extracted 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 give the following 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 sufficiently 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.
(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."
15. In Priya Vrat Singh and others vs. Shyam Ji Sahai, 2008 (8) SCC 232, Court observed that the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima-facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage.
16. In Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal, reported in, (2008) 17 SCC 157, the Court held that :
"20. So far as the scope and ambit of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is concerned, the same has been enunciated and reiterated by this Court in a catena of decisions and illustrative circumstances under which the High Court can exercise jurisdiction in quashing the proceedings have been enumerated. However, for the sake of brevity, we do not propose to make reference to the decisions on the point. It would suffice to state that though the powers possessed by the High Court under the said provision are very wide but these should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the Courts exist. The inherent powers possessed by the High Court are to be exercised very carefully and with great caution so that a legitimate prosecution is not stifled. Nevertheless, where the High Court is convinced that 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 or where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the 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, the powers of the High Court under the said provision should be exercised."
17. Present case does not appear to be covered in any category given in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others (supra).
18. From perusal of allegations made in complaint, statement of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the accused-applicant.
19. All the submissions made at bar raised to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
20. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.8.2019 Akram/I.A. Siddiqui