Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Raj Kumar Batra vs Vimal Mehra . on 9 July, 2015
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, N.V. Ramana
1
ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.8 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 7203/2014
(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17/07/2014
IN CRLMA NO. 24802/2014 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD)
RAJ KUMAR BATRA PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
VIMAL MEHRA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH APPLN. (S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND IMPLEADMENT AS
PARTY RESPONDENT AND PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND
OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 09/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. A. S. Pundir, Adv.
Mr. Arijeet Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Tenzing Tsering, Adv.
Mr. V.K. Shukla, AAG
Mr. Abhisth Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Pratap, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
Signature Not Verified
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] Digitally signed by Vinod Lakhina Date: 2015.07.11 12:50:55 IST Reason: 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.896 OF 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.7203/2014] RAJ KUMAR BATRA ...APPELLANT VERSUS VIMAL MEHRA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 17th July, 2014 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.24802 of 2014 by which the criminal proceedings against the respondents accused have been quashed.
2
3. We have heard Mr. A.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned AAG for the State of U.P.
4. The facts that will require to be noticed may be briefly indicated at the outset.
The appellant is the complainant and father of one Priyanka Batra who is married to Aditya Mehra, the son of accused Nos. 2 and 3 (respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein) and the brother of accused No.4 (respondent No.3 herein). The complainant had lodged a First Information Report No.128 of 2012 dated 21st October, 2012 with P.S. Railway Road, Sub District Sadar, District Meerut under Sections 498A, 324, 323, 504, 506, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the present accused as well as her husband which is presently pending. In the present 3 appeal, this Court would not be concerned with the said proceedings.
5. In the present appeal, the primary concern would be in respect of a complaint lodged by the appellant against the three accused (respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein) and Aditya Mehra under Sections 376, 406, 417 and 420 of the IPC. A reading of the said complaint would go to show that the gravamen of the charges levelled therein is that the accused knew that Aditya Mehra was already married and in spite of such knowledge had arranged the marriage of the daughter of the complainant Priyanka with Aditya. It is the further grievance of the complainant that the accused had misappropriated the streedhan properties that were brought to the matrimonial home by Priyanka and had also induced Priyanka to obtain a loan to purchase a immovable property which was so purchased in the name of the mother-in-law (accused No.3). After recording the 4 preliminary evidence, the learned trial Court issued process against Aditya Mehra i.e. husband of Priyanka alone but declined to do so in respect of the other accused.
6. Aggrieved, the complainant moved the Revisional Court which set aside the order of the trial Court and directed a reconsideration of the matter. On such reconsideration, process has been issued against all the four accused including the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein under Sections 406, 417 and 420 of the IPC.
7. Aggrieved, the three accused had moved the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad against the process issued and for quashing the complaint. The High Court by the impugned order has quashed the proceedings giving rise to the present appeal.
8. Having read and considered the complaint, we are of the view that a prima facie case to 5 proceed further in accordance with law is, indeed, made out against all the four accused. If the materials available on record can lead to such conclusion the law will have to be taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In this regard, we have seen the basis on which the High Court had thought it proper to interdict the proceedings. The relevant part of the said findings may be usefully extracted below:
“Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. In view of allegation and facts and circumstances, there is no material to show that applicants have knowledge of remarried or they instigated or assisted or participated in the re-married.
There is no evidence regarding remarriage. This petition is not on behalf of Aditya Mehra hence this is harassment of the entire family. The investigation is already pending under Section 498-A and D.P. Act. In view of the fact, the proceeding being malicious against the applicants is liable to be quashed. Hence proceeding of complaint case No.374 of 2013, under Section 376, 6 406, 417 and 420 IPC as well as summoning order dated 24.5.2014 passed by the ACJM, Court No.7, Meerut, against the applicant is hereby quashed.”
9. The order of the High Court extracted above not only is against the weight of the materials available at this stage but clearly discloses the absence of any reasonable basis to quash a proceeding in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In that view of the matter, we set aside the order of the High Court and direct that the criminal proceedings registered as Complaint Case No. 374 of 2013, titled as “Dr. Raj Kumar Vs. Aditya Mehra & Ors.”, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut be proceeded with in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We also make it clear that we ought not to be understood to have expressed any opinion on the culpability or otherwise of the 7 accused persons and all findings and observations that have been recorded by us is only for the purposes of determination of the prima facie case against the accused for proceeding further in accordance with law.
10. With the above said observations and consideration, the appeal is allowed as indicated above.
11. Crl.M.P. No.19405 of 2014 for impleadment of Aditya Mehra is disposed of as not pressed.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J.
(N.V. RAMANA) NEW DELHI JULY 09, 2015