Allahabad High Court
Hansraj And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 November, 2024
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:187109
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35579 of 2024
Applicant :- Hansraj And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 26.08.2024 as well as cognizance order dated 02.09.2024 and the entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No.1489 of 2024 (State Vs. Hansraj & Others), arising out of Case Crime No.163 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 306 I.P.C., Police Station-Jalalpur, District-Jaunpur, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Court No.12, Jaunpur.
3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by Nikhiddhi Rajbhar opposite party no.2 on 12.06.2024 at 21:06 hours which came to be registered as Case Crime No.0163 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 306 I.P.C. against five named accused including the applicants with the allegations that 12 years ago marriage of daughter of opposite party no.2 namely, Sarita was solemnized with applicant no.1 Hansraj, according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a child, who is presently two years old. It is further alleged that all the applicants used to harass the daughter of opposite party no.2. On 08.06.2024 at about 8 PM, the opposite party no.2 received a phone call from his daughter wherein he was communicated about the harassment being done by the applicants. She communicated about the abusive language being used by the applicants as well as the fact that she has been beaten by the applicants. On coming to know about the aforesaid, opposite party no.2 convinced his daughter stating that he will come to her in-laws' place on the next date. The opposite party no.2 again received a phone call at about 10 PM on the same day wherein he was informed by his son-in-law that his wife i.e. daughter of opposite party no.2 had locked herself and was not opening the door. At about 10:30 P.M. the opposite party no.2 again received a phone call from his son-in-law, who informed about death of daughter of opposite party no.2. Receiving the aforesaid information, the opposite party no.2 went to his daughter's in-laws' place where they found that she had already expired and her dead body was hanged on a fan, therefore, the present FIR was lodged. After investigation charge sheet was submitted only against the applicants exonerating Mansha (brother of applicant no.1), after which applicants have been summoned and hence, the present application has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the alleged incident happened on 08.06.2024 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 12.06.2024 after delay of four days without giving any plausible explanation for the same. He further submits that marriage of applicant no.1 and daughter of opposite party no.2 was solemnized 12 years ago. The information regarding death of daughter of opposite party no.2 was given by applicant no.1 Hansraj. The opposite party no.2 as well as other family members reached there and after being present at the time of inquest and post-mortem the FIR has been lodged. The opposite party no.2 as well as other family members participated at the last rites of wife of applicant no.1, however, after an afterthought the present FIR has been lodged on 12.06.2024. He lastly submits that no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out as the cause of death as per post-mortem is asphyxia due to hanging. There is no other injury on the part of the body except the ligature mark around the neck. It goes to show that the deceased has committed suicide, the reasons best known to her. Relying upon M. Mohan v. State Represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626, he submits that the applicants neither abetted the daughter of opposite party no.2 to commit suicide nor created any such situation for his daughter leaving no option for her but to commit suicide, therefore, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicants, therefore, submits that the present criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants is not only malicious but also amount to an abuse of the process of the court of law. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case are liable to be quashed by this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand submits that from the statement as well as re-statement of informant, it is clear that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized 12 years ago i.e. in the year 2012, however, Gona was performed after three years in the year 2015. It has also been specifically stated that the applicant no.1 used to misbehave with his wife i.e. daughter of opposite party no.2 because of her dark complexion. He used to loiter around, was habitual drinker and never behaved properly with his wife. After sending his daughter to her in-laws' place in the year 2015, the opposite party no.2 brought back his daughter in the year 2016 due to misbehaviour of applicants. She completed her education staying at her parents place. In the year 2020, the applicants came and requested for Vidai of daughter of opposite party no.2 to which he did not agree, however, on intervention of Usha Rajbhar, Gram Pradhan of the concerned village, the opposite party no.2 agreed to send his daughter to the in-laws' place, on the basis of compromise that applicants will not harass his daughter. It has been further stated by the informant that after her Vidai in the year 2020 the applicants continuously mentally and physically harassed his daughter. In the year 2021, the opposite party no.2 made arrangements of his daughter for staying along with his son-in-law in Varanasi for preparation of U.P.T.E.T. examination. Daughter of opposite party no.2 was blessed with a child in the year 2022.
6. Despite the aforesaid fact that now she was blessed with a child, applicants continued harassed the daughter of opposite party no.2. On 08.06.2024 the opposite party no.2 received a phone call from her daughter, who informed about abusive language being used and she was beaten by the applicants. They were forcing her to leave their house. It has also been stated that son-in-law had talk with a wife of opposite party no.2 and he stated that she is not cleaning the utensils. The wife of opposite party no.2 said to her son-in-law as to why he was fighting only for cleaning of utensils. The fact about communication about death of daughter of opposite party no.2 has also been mentioned in the statement of wife of opposite party no.2. Other details about the harassment during the period from 2012 to 2024 till her death has also been detailed in her statements.
7. Emphasizing upon the statement of Usha Rajbhar, Gram Pradhan of the concerned village, on whose intervention daughter of opposite party no.2 was send to her in-laws' place in 2020, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that it is clear that there was matrimonial discord between the parties, for which Gram Pradhan after sitting with them, mediated between the parties, therefore, the fact about differences between the applicants and opposite party no.2 is proved.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. further submit that in the inquest other injuries on the part of the body of deceased have been mentioned, which are as follows:-
"मृतक उपरोक्ता के शरीर पर कोई जाहिरा चोट नहीं दिख रहा है केवल दाहिने हाथ में जलने का निशान व गले में दाहिने व बाये तरफ दबे हुए चोट छिला हुआ चोट का निशान दिखाई दे रहा है।"
9. From the statement of informant as well as mother of deceased and other charge sheet witnesses, applicants had created such circumstances which left no other option to the deceased but to commit suicide, therefore, offence under the relevant section is made out.
10. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has further submitted that at the stage of taking cognizance by the Magistrate as per the provisions contained in Section 190(1)(b), the concerned Magistrate has to see as to whether prima facie case is being made out against the applicants. In the instant case, the concerned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance on 02.09.2024 on the basis of documents collected by the Investigating Officer including the statements of the witnesses. In support of their contention, they have relied upon the following judgments:-
(i). R.P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866;
(ii). State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Criminal) 426;
(iii). Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (para 10) 205 SCC (Criminal) 283;
(iv). Mohd. Allauddin vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2019 SC 1910;
(v). Sakeer and others vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 13727 of 2006 decided on 06.03.2020.
11. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further submit that perusal of F.I.R. as well as statements of the witnesses, goes to show that, prima facie case for the alleged offence is made out against the applicants. They further submit that this High Court may not quash the entire criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the pre-trial stage, for which they have relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others reported in 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454, wherein the Apex Court has held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is an essential issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties.
12. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 state that this Court may not exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the present case, and hence the present application is liable to be rejected.
13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the present application.
14. It would be appropriate to refer Section 306 IPC, which reads as under:-
"306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
15. In this context, it is also relevant to refer to Section 107 IPC, which reads as under:-
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
(First)-- Instigates any person to do that thing; or (Secondly)--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (Thirdly)-- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
16. In the present case, the applicants had by their acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which an instigation in the case can be inferred.
17. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide.
18. In the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ude Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301, it has been held that if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC.
19. This Court comes on the issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence(s) alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any law or Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by the Apex Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding.
20. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 AIR 604, the Apex Court in paragraph 102 has enumerated 7 categories of the cases where power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by this Court, which are quoted below:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised 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 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 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."
21. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, have consistently been followed in the recent judgement of three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) SCC OnLine 315 wherein it has been held that there is no denial of the fact that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but as observed by this Court in catena of decisions, referred to hereinabove, conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious and it casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court. Therefore, in exceptional cases, when the High Court deems it fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, may pass appropriate interim orders, as thought apposite in law, however, the High Court has to give brief reasons which will reflect the application of mind by the court to the relevant facts.
22. In recent relevant judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati vs. State of U.P., reported in (2022) 4 SCC 549, it was observed as under;-
"16. It is no doubt true that the power of quashing of criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases and it was not justified for the Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and fancies."
23. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds 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. The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings is refused as I do not see any abuse of the Court's process either.
24. In such a situation where the applicants have created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide and perusal of the averments made in the FIR as well as the statement of the witnesses recorded by the I.O. and the conduct of the applicants in a heinous offence where a person had lost his life, this Court is of the opinion that the relief as prayed by the applicants cannot be granted.
25. This Court, however, may clarify that whatever is said in this judgment is purely tentative and limited to the purpose of judging the worth of the prayer to quash proceedings as well as impugned orders. It is and ought not be regarded by the Trial Court as any kind of a comment or evaluation about evidence, which is yet to surface during trial. The truth of the prosecution case has to be established beyond doubt at the trial in accordance with law. However, this Court is of opinion that this is not a case, where the prosecution ought to be scuttled at the threshold in the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code.
26. With the aforesaid observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2024 Rahul.