Allahabad High Court
Deepak Kumar And 3 Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 16 September, 2016
Author: Naheed Ara Moonis
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 47 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20820 of 2016 Applicant :- Deepak Kumar And 3 Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuraj Kishore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ch. Dil Nisar Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Rejoinder affidavit has been filed today which is taken on record.Since counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties, this Court is proceeding to decide the case finally.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Ankit Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of summoning order dated 17.12.2015 passed in Case No.868 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.606C of 2014, under sections 498-A, 323, 326, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur pending in the Court of learned A.C.J./F.T.C. Saharanpur.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no.1 is the husband, applicant nos. 2 and 3 are father in law and mother in law and the applicant no.4 is married sister in law of the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 has lodged the F.I.R. against the applicants with frivolous allegations that there was demand of dowry and on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry she was ousted from her matrimonial house. The allegations are false and unfounded which has resulted into grave injustice. The investigation has been done in a very pedantic manner culminating into chargesheet. No prima facie offence is made out under section 326 I.P.C and as such the entire proceeding is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law hence the same is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has contended that the opposite party no.2 was medically examined on 10.7.2014 at District Government Hospital, Saharanpur, which shows five injuries upon her body. X Ray of her face and nose was conducted on 12.7.2014 and fracture of nasal bone was found. There is no chance of settlement of dispute between the parties before the mediation centre. The order passed by the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any legal or procedural infirmity. Cognizance of the matter has been taken on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the investigating officer after collecting clinching material. The innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at the primitive stage. The applicants will have ample opportunity to raise objection at the appropriate stage before the court below.
From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicant.
At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:- (i) R. P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC(Crl) 426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P. P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl) 192.
From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S. W. Palanattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002(44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists.
The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing the proceeding is refused. There is no merit in this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., thus the same is accordingly dismissed. The applicants have ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 had already been released on bail under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and therefore their bail application may be considered in the added section 326 I.P.C. by the court below.
The applicants are directed to appear and surrender within thirty days before the court below and apply for bail, which shall be considered in accordance with law.
It is however, provided that the applicant nos. 3 and 4, namely Smt. Rajrani and Smt. Dolly shall be released on interim bail following the provisions of section 437 Cr.P.C. till the disposal of the regular bail application.
In case the applicants fail to surrender within the stipulated period the court below shall take appropriate action against them.
Order Date :- 16.9.2016 RU