Allahabad High Court
Ram Kumar Raghav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 October, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 327 of 2016 Applicant :- Ram Kumar Raghav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Kumar Singh,Haridwar Singh Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
This 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of case no. 51184 of 2015 arising out of case crime no. 84 of 2015 under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Mahila Thana, District Gautam Budh Nagar as well as the charge-sheet dated 16.10.2015 filed in the aforesaid case.
Heard Sri Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri N.C. Srivastava, holding brief of Sri Alok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicant no.1 is father-in-law, applicant no.2 is mother-in-law and applicant no.3 is unmarried sister-in-law (nanad) of the opposite party no.2. Initially, first information report was lodged against the husband also, but no charge-sheet was submitted against him. At this juncture, learned counsel has referred to the contents of the F.I.R. as well as statement recorded by the investigating officer during investigation and argued that there was no nexus between the demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment with the applicants. If the entire prosecution case is taken into consideration, then also applicants will not be benefitted directly in any manner with the alleged demand of scorpio vehicle. The husband, who was not charge-sheeted in the matter, may get benefitted directly with the said demand. It is further submitted that general allegation has been levelled against the applicants. Applicant no.3 is unmarried nanad. It appears improbable and unbelievable that she would involve in such type of demand and causing cruelty. At this stage, in support of his contention, learned counsel has also placed reliance on the following decisions :
1. Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Harihar Singh, 2008 LawSuit(SC) 1643.
2. Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) ADJ 464.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State argued that all the applicants were actively involved in committing the present offence. Since no such type of demand was ever made by the husband, therefore, charge-sheet was not submitted against him. Cognizance order passed in the matter is based on evidence available on record. There is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order.
I have considered the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.
Before proceeding to deal with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be appropriate to quote paragraph 7 of the judgement of Apex Court in Eicher Tractors case (supra), which is as under:
"7. In dealing with the last case, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt, should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. A note of caution was, however, added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of the rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as follows: (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) "(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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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."
In this matter, as is evident from the record, husband of the opposite party no.2 was not charge-sheeted in this matter. Applicant no.3 is unmarried nanad of opposite party no.2. Applicants no. 1 and 2 are the parents of the husband of opposite party no.2. Allegation against the applicants is that they were causing cruelty and harassment and were also abusing the opposite party no.2 by raising dowry demand in the form of scorpio vehicle. If the role assigned to the present applicants and their status are compared with the submissions raised at Bar, applicants will not be benefited directly with the demand said to have been made in the matter.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in view the allegations levelled against them in the statement, the fact that there is no nexus between the demand with these applicants and also the law laid down by the Apex Court in Eicher Tractors case (supra) and Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) ADJ 464, the Court is of the view that the proceedings against the applicants were initiated with malafide intention and continuance of such proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The concerned Magistrate did not apply judicial mind while passing the summoning order against the applicants to face trial. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and requires interference by this Court.
In view of the above discussions, there is substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. The application is liable to be allowed and the proceedings in respect of the applicants are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The entire proceedings of case no. 51184 of 2015 arising out of case crime no. 84 of 2015 under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Mahila Thana, District Gautam Budh Nagar as well as the charge-sheet dated 16.10.2015 filed in the aforesaid case are quashed against the applicants.
Order Date :- 24.10.2019 ss