Allahabad High Court
Suhel And 3 Others vs State Of U.P Through Its Principal ... on 9 July, 2024
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:111513 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20062 of 2024 Applicant :- Suhel And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Its Principal Secretary (Home) And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Yadav,Rajendra Kumar Ratnakar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 27.02.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 27.03.2024, of Case No. 5247 of 2024 (State Vs. Suhel and others), arising out of case crime no. 77 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.- Hapur Dehat, District- Hapur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. The allegations of dowry demand and harassment of victim/ informant are wholly false. It was submitted that opposite party no.2/ victim was having relationship with some other person and in that connection applicants have moved several applications to the police authorities but no action was taken and the First Information Report of this case was lodged on making false and baseless allegation. There are material contradictions in the statement of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. In injury report, only simple injuries have been shown on body of victim. Referring to these facts, it was submitted that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that a prima-facie case is made out against the applicants.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held. In the instant case, there are allegations that after marriage of opposite party no.2 with applicant no.1, she was harassed by the accused persons on account of dowry. They used to demand Rs.2 lakh and a car and that on 08.01.2023 they have assaulted her and tried to strangle her. It was also alleged that her father-in-law has caused injuries to her with a razor. In medical examination report, several injuries have been shown on body of the victim/ informant. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., victim has also stated that the accused persons have also snatched her child and thrown him and that her brother-in-law/ applicant no.4 Sameer used to keep an evil eye on her and he used to touch her inappropriately. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned/adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. In the instant matter, in view of allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. Hence, the prayer as sought is refused.
7. However, the applicants would be at liberty to move an application for discharge before the trial Court concerned and may raise their pleas before the trial Court. It is directed that in case applicants move an application for discharge within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
8. The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed with aforesaid observations.
Order Date :- 9.7.2024 SP/-