Allahabad High Court
Smt. Madhu Rani Chaudhary And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 October, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2502
Author: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6263 of 2006 Applicant :- Smt. Madhu Rani Chaudhary And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate, S.N. Yadav Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
List revised. Shri Ramanuj Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. are present. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 despite repeated calls. This application is of year 2006. In the wake of heavy pendency of cases in this Court where dockets are already bursting on their seams there is no justifiable reason to further procrastinate the matter. This Court, therefore, deems it fit to proceed in the matter without waiting further for the counsel of opposite side and to decide the case on the basis of the record and with the assistance of the learned A.G.A. representing the State.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet as well as the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.C-11/2005, u/s 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.-Sirsaganj, District-Firozabad, pending in the Court of Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad.
Heard Shri Ramanuj Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
All the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicants relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon on behalf of applicants. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
According to the allegations made in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. it transpires that the first informant Rekha resident of Firozabad was married on 30.4.1997 with Gyaneshwar Prasad Chaudhary and conventional gifts were given at the time of marriage, the details of which have been enumerated in the application. But the husband Gyaneshwar Prasad Chaudhary, mother-in-law Smt. Vijay Rani, sister-in-law Madhu, maternal father-in-law Shyam Bihari Lal were not satisfied with the gifts which were given at the time of marriage and they started demanding additional dowry in the form of Rs.2 lacs. They also pressed for a demand of car. It was also alleged that the husband of the first informant was having some kind of illicit relationship with one woman Aneeta. It was also alleged that actually a child was also born as a result of aforesaid relationship with Aneeta, who is also an accomplice in committing cruelty on the first informant and was interested in the ouster of the first informant from her matrimonial home. The father of the first informant expressed inability to fulfil the additional demands which resulted in gross ill-treatment that was being inflicted on the first informant. It was also alleged that her Stridhan was also misappropriated. Some sort of mediation process was also attempted but good sense did not prevail on the accused persons and they were adamant to exact out the dowry that was being demanded by the accused. At some stage of her disgruntled marital life the first informant was ousted from her matrimonial home after beating her badly.
The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately 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 I do 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.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the Court's process either.
The interim order, if any, is vacated.
However, it is observed that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the accused-applicants may appear before the court below and apply for bail within two weeks from today. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application, keeping in view the observations made by the Court in the Full Bench decision of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290 and also in view of the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
In the aforesaid period or till the date of appearance of the accused in the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken or given effect to.
It is clarified that this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved in this Court.
With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 16.10.2019 M. Kumar