Allahabad High Court
Arvind Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 November, 2020
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 51 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16253 of 2020 Applicant :- Arvind Gupta And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Singh Kaushik,Beerendra Singh Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Singh Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet and order taking cognizance dated 01.07.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1229 of 2020 (State Vs. Vandana Gupta and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 327 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District Ballia, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicants are jethani and jeth of the deceased (Sangeeta) and there are no allegations levelled against them in the F.I.R. Applicants are living separately along with their children in other colony since 2013. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464.
Similarly in Taramani Parakh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260, the Apex Court again struck a note not to indiscriminately quash the proceedings against the relatives of the husband in a matrimonial dispute on the strength of Geeta Mehrotra (supra). Paragraph-12 of Taramani Parakh (supra) reads as under:-
"12. In Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.2055 of 2014 decided on 6.9.2014), it was observed: "9. We have gone through the FIR and the criminal complaint. In the FIR, the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have been named without attributing any specific role to them. The relationship of the appellants with the husband of the complainant is distant. In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2000) 5 SCC 207], it was observed:-
"5.....A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case."
The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role.
The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are well known. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the criminal proceedings are abuse of Court's process, quashing jurisdiction can be exercised. Reference may be made to K. Ramakrsihna and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. [(2000) 8 SCC 547], Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749], State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [(1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335] and Asmathunnisa vs. State of A.P."
In view of the above, matter requires consideration in respect of the applicants.
Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A.
Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.
Opposite party no.2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Learned A.G.A. may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Rejoinder affidavit may thereafter be filed within two weeks.
List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Bench along with Application U/S 482 No. 14515 of 2020 (Vandana Gupta & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another).
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid criminal case.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 10.11.2020 Sushil/-