Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Shafat Ali And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 October, 2019
Author: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16433 of 2019 Applicant :- Mohd. Shafat Ali And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicants seeking the quashing of charge-sheet No.Nil of 2018 and cognizance order dated 08.10.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.52760 of 2018 (State Vs. Mohd. Shafat Ali & others) arising out of N.C.R. No.37 of 2018, u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Bajariya, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.
As per office report, notices were issued and have been received back through father of opposite party no.2 but today when the case was taken up nobody has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.
Submission of the counsel is that daughter of the applicant no.1 was married with opposite party no.2, Waseem Aslam and after the marriage she was ill treated and all sorts of cruelty were inflicted upon her. As a result of the same a case under section 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act had to be filed against opposite party no.2 and other family members. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Annexure No.7. It was submitted that at some stage as she was ousted from her matrimonial home, she was impelled to spend life with her parents and was not being maintained and was being neglected, therefore a case under section 125 Cr.P.C. was also filed. Apart from this a complaint under section 406 I.P.C. has also been filed against the opposite party no.2 and other family mambers. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Annexure no.9. Submission is that indignated by the same the opposite party no.2 as an arm twisting device has brought this entirely false and frivolous case against the applicants in order to exert coercive pressure so that the applicants may not pursue the matter against the opposite party no.2 in the right earnest. Submission is that the background of the case is such that malice behind the prosecution is apparent on the face of record. Counsel has also tried to dwell upon the improbabilities involved in the narration of events as has been disclosed in the N.C.R. Further submission is that as the mala fide intention of bringing this case is apparent on the face of record, continuation of proceedings against the applicants will result in only abuse of court's process. Submission is that, in fact, the applicants are already on the receiving end and the daughter of the applicant no.1 has already suffered too much and now the torture of this false implication of the case has been heaped upon the applicants.
Perused the record in the light of submissions made at the bar.
The law on the point of quashing of the criminal proceeding has been expatiated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426, in which certain categories have been recognized on the basis of which the criminal proceeding against a certain party or the accused may be quashed. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case as follows:-
"The following categories can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court 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 F.I.R. 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."
It is apparent from the perusal of the record that daughter of the applicant no.1 has been married to opposite party no.2 and in the wake of cruel treatment inflicted upon her several cases were brought against opposite party no.2 which included a case under section 498A I.P.C. etc., a case under section 406 I.P.C. and also a case under section 125 Cr.P.C. In such background, this Court does not find any difficulty to infer that in all probability the filing of the present case appears to be just a counterblast reaction and just an attempt to exert coercive pressure upon the applicants. The malice behind the prosecution is apparent on the face of record and in the considered view of this Court, this matter falls in category no.7 mentioned hereinabove. This court therefore finds it appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings against the applicants in order to avert the abuse of court's process and meet the ends of justice.
In this view of the matter, this application is allowed and the entire proceedings of the case going on against the accused-applicants stands quashed.
Order Date :- 16.10.2019 shiv