Allahabad High Court
Preeti @ Ranu Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 November, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2229
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 51 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15900 of 2020 Applicant :- Preeti @ Ranu Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Anup Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 12th September, 2009, order taking cognizance dated 2nd April, 2010 and order dated 22nd January, 2013 as well as entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 1500 of 2010 (State Vs. Gaurav Singh & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2009,, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. as also under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Naini, District-Prayagraj (Allahabad), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2, Allahabad.
3. The facts, which are relevant for the purposes of deciding the present application are as follows:
A first information report has been lodged by opposite party no.2, Indu Singh on 17th February, 2009 through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., against three named accused persons Gaurav Singh, Kamla Singh and Preeti @ Ranu Singh (applicant herein), who are husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of opposite party no.2 respectively, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 97 of 2009,, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. as also under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Naini, District-Prayagraj (Allahabad). In the said first information report, it has been alleged by opposite party no.2 that the marriage of opposite party no.2 has been solemnized with Gaurav Singh on 6th May, 2007 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. At the wedding, as per his full capacity, the father of opposite party no.2 gave Rs. 3 lac, jewellery for a sum of Rs. 1 lac and utensils for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to her in-laws as demand of dowry but her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law (all the accused persons) were not satisfied. After marriage, they used to harass opposite party no.2 for Rs. 1 lac and one motorcycle as additional demand of dowry. On 8th July, 2007, opposite party no.2 came to her parental house and told her father and mother about the aforesaid demand of dowry. In October, 2007, husband and mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 came to her parental house and demanded the aforesaid additional demand of dowry by threatening that if the aforesaid additional demand of dowry was not fulfilled by the father of opposite party no.2, they would not take opposite party no.2 to their house. On the assurance given by father of opposite party no.2 to her husband and mother-in-law that he would fulfill the said demand of dowry at the earliest, as at that time he had no money, her husband and mother-in-law took her to their house. For few days, the behaviour of the accused persons was normal with opposite party no.2 but thereafter all the accused persons started abusing and beating her and demanded the aforesaid dowry repeatedly. When opposite party no.2 told her father about the said behaviour of all the accused persons with her, her father and brother came to her matrimonial house at Katni. On coming of father and brother of opposite party no.2 at her matrimonial house, all the accused persons threatened them that if they did not fulfill their additional demand of dowry, they would kill her. Then somehow, with the help of Katni Police, father and brother of opposite party no.2 brought her to her parental house. The husband and mother-in-law came to the parental house of opposite party no.2 again and demanded Rs. 1 lac and one motorcycle but her father requested them to take her daughter to their house and he would fulfill their demand after arranging the money but they did not take his daughter i.e. opposite party no.2 along with them. Ultimately, opposite party no.2 had no other option but to make an application before the Police Station to lodge the first information report against them but the Police did not lodge the first information report. Thereafter opposite party no.2 moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for lodging of the first information report against the accused persons. On the direction issued by the court below, the first information report has been lodged, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 97 of 2009,, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. as also under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Naini, District-Prayagraj (Allahabad).
4. Upon completion of the statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet on 12th Sepember, 2009 against the applicant and her mother and brother, namely, Kamla Singh and Gaurav Singh respectively under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. as also under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act on which the court below i.e. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad had taken cognizance vide order dated 2nd April, 2010 and all the accused persons had also been summoned by the same order dated 2nd April, 2010.
5. From the perusal of the certified copy of order-sheets of the court below, which is at page 55 onwards of the paper book, it is clear that when the accused persons had not appeared before the Court below, on the application filed by the defence side, the court below wrote a letter to the S.S.P. for summoning of the accused persons on 29th March, 2011. Again when the accused persons did not turn up, on 14th December, 2011 the Court below wrote a letter to the Additional Director General of Police at Katni (Madhya Pradesh) for ensuring the presence of the accused persons before the Court below. On 16th May, 2012, bailable warrants were issued against the accused persons. Ultimately, on 22nd January, 2013 the court below issued non-bailable warrants against the accused persons. On 6th August, 2013, the court below again issued non-bailable warrants against the accused persons and also a letter had been written to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Katni (Madhya Pradesh) for ensuring their presence before the court below. On 18th January, 2015, two accused persons, namely, Gaurav Singh and Kamla Singh surrendered before the court below and applied for bail. Kamla Singh was granted bail but the second accused Gaurav Singh was sent to jail. On 19th March, 2015, the accused Gaurav Singh again applied for bail and was granted bail by the court below. However, the third accused i.e. the applicant did not turn up. Ultimately, on 10th September, 2015, the court below again issued non-bailable warrant against her and a letter had also been written to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Katni (Madhya Pradesh). Through the accused persons, namely, Gaurav Singh and Kamla Singh, who are none other than the brother and mother of the applicant, have been appearing before the court below and facing trial but she did not appear. Now, against the charge-sheet dated 12th September, 2009, order taking cognizance dated 2nd April, 2010, order issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant dated 22nd January, 2013 as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case, the applicant has approached this Court by means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which has been reported on 21st October, 2020 and presented before the Court on 22nd October, 2020.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present first information report lodged by opposite party no.2, namely, Smt. Indu Singh is nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has been lodged only for exploiting the applicant and other accused persons by indulging their names in a fake, false and frivolous case. The entire prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report is absolutely a self-made story projected by opposite party no.2. The applicant being the sister of the husband of opposite party no.2 has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the allegations made by opposite party no.2 are general and vague as also the same have been levelled against her husband and mother-in-law, who had caused alleged incident at her father's house at Naini (Allahabad), therefore, the same are apparently false. It is not possible for husband and mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 to visit her parental house and beat her. It is also submitted that the applicant was married in the year 2005 and lives at Ghaziabad along with her husband since then. Though the applicant is Nanad of opposite party no.2 but she never demanded any dowry nor was involved in the commission of the alleged incident. Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, submitted that the present criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant is not only malicious but also amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case are liable to be quashed by this Court.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant by contending that it is settled law that at pre-trial stage, the proceedings cannot be quashed by this Court by exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. Apart from the above, learned A.G.A. also submits that despite summoning order dated 2nd April, 2010, order issuing bailable warrant dated 16th May, 2012, order issuing non-bailable warrant dated 22nd January, 2013, such persons like applicant, who has chosen not to appear before the court below are not entitled for any relief. The conduct of the applicant shows total disrespect to the process of the Court.
9. Normally this Court would have not entertain application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by such persons, who have disobeyed the order of the court for more than 10 years, but considering the fact that the applicant is lady, this Court proposed the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant may appear before the court below and seek recall of the warrant so issued under Section 70 (2) Cr.P.C within 30 days and the Court also suggested that for a period of 30 days she will be granted interim protection. However, learned counsel for the applicant insisted the Court that the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed as his case is of high merit and the applicant has not consciously disobeyed the order of the court below. In support of his plea, he referred to paragraph nos.-17 and 18 of the affidavit accompanying the present application, which is read as follows:
"It is very much clear from the order dated 2nd June, 2015 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby issued Non-Bailable warrant against the applicant and further be directed write follow to senior Superintendent of Police Katani even applicant is residing at Ghaziabad along with her husband therefore she could not know about the said case and she could know first time about the said case when her brother has informed on 20.08. 2020 about the said case that local police has informed that Non-Bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant prior to that neither counsel for the brother of the applicant has informed about Non-Bailable Warrant and ensure to her brother that case against the applicant has been quashed.
18.That as soon as applicant could know about the said case immediately engage counsel namely Sri Ajay Kumar Singh and requested to challenged before Hon'ble High Court thereafter paper has been collected by counsel and obtained certified copy from the court concerned and thereafter same is being filed without any further delay therefore there is no any deliberately delay on part of the applicant for filing the instant criminal applicant under section 482 Cr.P.C."
10. So far as the first submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant that since the criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 against the accused persons including the applicant are a false and frivolous case, the same may be quashed, is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. This Court does not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
11. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has not deliberately disobeyed the order of the court and the process of law has only been stated to be rejected on the ground that for a common man, it is impossible to believe that a person, who is residing separately at another place from her brother and mother with whom she is in constant contact did not know for more than five years about a criminal case, which has been initiated against herself and her brother and mother in which her brother and mother surrendered before the court below on 18th January, 2015. Thereafter her mother was granted bail on 18th January, 2015 and her brother was granted bail on 19th March, 2015. Since then, they are facing trial. It is only on 20th August, 2020 that the applicant has been informed by her brother Gaurav Singh i.e. co-accused that non-bailable warrant has been issued against her. Such explanation given by the learned counsel on behalf of his client i.e. the applicant herein cannot be accepted by this Court. A conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process of the court is to be dealt with iron hands and no person can tinker with it to prevent, prejudice, obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice.
12. The prayer for quashing or setting aside the impugned orders as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case is refused as I do not see any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned orders or the proceedings under challenge. There is absolutely no abuse of court's process perceptible in the same. The present matter also does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify interference by this Court in order to upset or quash them.
13. In view of the aforesaid the present application is dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand rupees only). The said cost shall be deposited by the applicant by way of a bank draft in the name of Registrar General of this Court within one month from today. In case the applicant does not deposit the same within the time provided the same shall be recovered by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad from her arrears of land revenue. On deposit of Rs. 15,000/- the Registrar General shall transmit to the concerned account for the use of poor clients, who do not bear to file their case before this Court.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 3.11.2020 Sushil/-