Allahabad High Court
Shahabuddin Ahmad@Sameer And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2623
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21659 of 2019 Applicant :- Shahabuddin Ahmad@Sameer And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijai Bahadur Yadav,Hemant Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramesh Chand Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Sri Ajay Kumar Singh has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the applicants in Court today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ramesh Chand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 02.04.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 85 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Gopiganj, District Bhadohi, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Duddhi, District Bhadohi.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that marriage of opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with applicant no.1 on 14.04.2018 according to Muslim Rites and Rituals and at the time of marriage, parents of opposite party no. 2 spent Rs.16 lacs and given jewellery with certain items as a dowry, but the in-laws of the victim (opposite party no. 2) were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and they started harassing and torturing her for demand of additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, an application was moved before the concerned police station by the opposite party no.2 but nothing was done, therefore, application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved to get an F.I.R. lodged against the applicants. By the order dated 30.05.2019, matter was referred to the Mediation Centre.
He further submits that present F.I.R. has been lodged through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with false and frivolous allegations against the applicants. Applicant no.1 is the husband and applicant nos. 2 to 5 are the family members of applicant no. 1 and the allegation levelled against them, are general and vague with no specificity. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) ADJ 464.
Similarly in Taramani Parakh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2015) 11 SCC 260 the Apex Court again struck a note not to indiscriminately quash the proceedings against the relatives of the husband in a matrimonial dispute on the strength of Geeta Mehrotra (supra). Paragraph-12 of Taramani Parakh (supra) reads as under:-
"12. In Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.2055 of 2014 decided on 6.9.2014), it was observed: "9. We have gone through the FIR and the criminal complaint. In the FIR, the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have been named without attributing any specific role to them. The relationship of the appellants with the husband of the complainant is distant. In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2000) 5 SCC 207], it was observed:-
"5.....A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case."
The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role.
The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are well known. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the criminal proceedings are abuse of Court's process, quashing jurisdiction can be exercised. Reference may be made to K. Ramakrsihna and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. [(2000) 8 SCC 547], Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749], State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [(1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335] and Asmathunnisa vs. State of A.P."
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. states that offence under the relevant Sections are made out as per the averments made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 also states that the mediation has failed in this matter which is evident from the report of the Mediation Centre dated 23.10.2019.
I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of parties.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that no specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant nos. 2 to 5 in F.I.R. If the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants is compared with the fact and evidence available on record, certainly what actual words were used by each and every accused to attract the offence levelled in the present matter have not been made clear in the F.I.R. General allegations have been levelled against the applicant nos. 2 to 5 regarding the demand of dowry, causing cruelty and beating. If the law laid down in Geeta Mehrotra (supra) case is compared with the facts and evidence available on record and also with the submission raised by learned counsel for the parties, Court is of the opinion that continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case against the applicant nos. 2 to 5 on the strength of facts mentioned in the F.I.R. will be abuse of process of law. Since no specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant nos. 2 to 5, they cannot derive benefit directly with the demand said to have been made in the matter from opposite party no.2, thus, application having substance is liable to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case against the applicant nos. 2 to 5, are quashed.
However, the prayer in respect of the applicant no. 1 is refused. It is directed that if applicant no. 1 appears and surrenders before the court below within one month from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the settled law laid by the Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, i.e, Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 15609 of 2016 decided on 8.7.2016.
For a period of one month from today or till the applicant no.1 surrenders and applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. However, in case, he does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, concerned court below shall proceed in accordance with law against him.
Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.2.2020/Priya