Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Sharma vs Bhajan Lal And Others on 29 June, 2022
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 29th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC NO.360 of 2017
.
Between:-
1. SANJAY SHARMA, S/O LATE
SH. S.C SHARMA, R/O
VILLAGE JANGAL KHORE,
POST OFFICE, JALARI,
TEHSIL NADAUN, DISTRICT
HAMIRPUR, H.P.
2. SANDEEP SHARMA, S/O
LATE SH. S.C. SHARMA, R/O
VILLAGE JANGAL KHORE,
POST OFFICE, JALARI,
TEHSIL NADAUN, DISTRICT
HAMIRPUR, H.P.
3. SUJATA SHARMA, W/O SH.
MANJU GHOSH, R/O
VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE,
NARELI, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.
4. SANAJANA SHARMA, W/O
SH. KAMAL SHARMA, R/O
WARD NO.8, BRAHAMPURA
MOHALLA, SUJANPUR,
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.
......PETITIONERS
(BY MR. BHUVNESH SHARMA
AND MR. RAMAKANT
SHARMA, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
2. RAMA SHARMA, D/O LATE
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2022 20:01:18 :::CIS
2
SH.PRITAM CHAND, R/O
VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE, TAL
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
HAMIRPUR, H.P.
.
......RESPONDENTS
(MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR.
NARINDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR.
SUNNY DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT
ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR R-1
MR. I.S. CHANDEL, ADVOCATE, FOR
R-2)
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
passed the following:
ORDER
By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.241/2016, dated 24.09.2016, registered at Police Station Hamirpur, H.P. under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of IPC as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending in the competent court of law.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that marriage inter se respondent No.2, Ms. Rama Sharma and petitioner No.1, Sanjay Sharma, was solemnized on 07.07.2004, as per Hindu Rites and Customs and out of their wedlock, one son Tushar, was born in the year 2006. Since, respondent No.2, was allegedly maltreated and given beatings by the petitioners, she started living separately at her parental house w.e.f. February, 2009.
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2022 20:01:18 :::CIS 3Allegedly, even after February, 2009, petitioners herein, started maltreating and harassing respondent No.2 by hurling abuses and using obscene words over telephone. Respondent No.2, initiated .
proceedings against her husband, petitioner No.1 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as well as under Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking therein maintenance, which are still pending adjudication. After 7 years of her departure from her matrimonial house, respondent No.2, instituted FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings against the petitioners (Annexure P-2), alleging therein that after two days of her marriage, petitioners started torturing her. She alleged that repeatedly, she was given beatings by the petitioners and was also extended threats to do away with her life. She alleged that on account of cruelty meted to her everyday, she was unable to reside alongwith the petitioners and in February, 2009, was forcibly ousted from her matrimonial house by the petitioners and since then, she along with her son is living with her parents. She also alleged that till date, she has not been returned her istridhan including gold/silver ornaments. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, which is still pending adjudication. Petitioners herein have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR on the ground that FIR sought to be quashed doesn't disclose offences, if any, punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC. It has been further claimed on behalf of the petitioners that there is an inordinate delay of 7 years in lodging of FIR, which itself suggests that FIR sought to be quashed, ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2022 20:01:18 :::CIS 4 has been lodged with a view to harass the petitioners with whom, respondent No.2 has estranged relations. It has been further claimed that since petitioner No.1, filed complaint under Sections 494 & 497 .
IPC read with Section 34 of IPC against respondent No.1, Rama Sharma and one person namely Sh. Onkar Singh, she in retaliation made serious allegations in the FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings.
3. Prayer made in the instant proceedings on behalf of the petitioners has been seriously opposed by the respondents on the ground that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, suggestive of the fact that the petitioners had been harassing respondent No.2, on account of bringing less dowry and, repeatedly she was given beatings by them. Mr. Narinder Guleria, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. I.S. Chandel, learned counsel, while making this Court peruse the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceeding, vehemently argued that the same clearly discloses offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 IPC and as such, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR, deserves outright rejection. Above-named counsel further argued that the FIR clearly reveals that even in the year 2016, petitioner hurled abuses and indulged in character assassination of respondent No.2 and as such, there is no delay in lodging the FIR.
4. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record. Before ascertaining correctness of rival submission made by learned counsel representing the parties, this ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2022 20:01:18 :::CIS 5 Court deems it fit to discuss and elaborate upon the scope and competence of this Court to quash FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment titled State of .
Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down several principles, which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Before pronouncement of aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, a three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Court in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others, 1977 (2) SCC 699, held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. Relevant para is being reproduced herein below:-
"7....In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2022 20:01:18 :::CIS 6 inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."
6. Subsequently, Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), .
has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Subsequently, Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., while considering the scope of interference under Sections 397 Cr.PC and 482 Cr.PC, by the High Courts, has held that High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to quashed. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that the saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose i.e. a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Apex Court taking note of seven categories, where power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.PC, as enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra), i.e. where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafides 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, quashed the proceedings.
7. Hon'ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, while drawing strength from its earlier ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2022 20:01:18 :::CIS 7 judgment titled as Rajiv Thapar and Ors v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, has reiterated that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC., to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an .
accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charge, but such power must always be used with caution, care and circumspection. While invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts and the material adduced on record itself overrules the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. In the aforesaid judgment titled Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"22. The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminal proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") has been dealt with by this Court in Rajiv ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2022 20:01:18 :::CIS 8 Thapar & Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor wherein this Court inter alia held as under: (2013) 3 SCC 330, paras 29-30)
29. The issue being examined in the instant case is .
the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.
30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2022 20:01:18 :::CIS 9 by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
30.1 Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
.
30.2 Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused."
8. Hon'ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P. (2011) 11 SCC 259, has held as under:
"12. This Court, in a number of cases, has laid down the scope and ambit of the High Court's power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2022 20:01:18 :::CIS 10 by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court .
would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.
13. The law has been crystallized more than half a century ago in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 wherein this Court has summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. This Court summarized the following three broad categories where the High Court would be justified in exercise of its powers under section 482:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge."
14. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others (1976) 3 SCC 736, according to the court, the process against the accused can be quashed or set aside :
"(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2022 20:01:18 :::CIS 11 prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials .
which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like".
15. This court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others (1977) 2 SCC 699, observed that the wholesome power under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice requires that the proceedings ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In this case, the court observed that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the Legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this court and other courts."
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa (supra) has categorically held that where discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible;
and where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2022 20:01:18 :::CIS 12 as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like, High Court would be justified in exercise of its powers under S. 482 CrPC.
.
10. From the bare perusal of aforesaid exposition of law, it is quite apparent that exercising its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC., High Court can proceed to quash the proceedings, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the law.
11. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute qua the facts, as have been detailed hereinabove. It is not in dispute that since February, 2009, respondent No.2 alongwith her son, is living at her parental house, which is at a distance of 50 K.M. from her matrimonial house. It is also not in dispute that prior to lodging of FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, no complaint, if any, ever came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 either to Gram Panchayat or to police with regard to atrocities, if any, committed upon her by the petitioners. Though in the FIR, respondent No.2 has alleged that after her marriage in the year 2009, petitioners started harassing her and extended threats to do away with her life, but as has been noticed hereinabove, at no point of time, complaint, if any, ever came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2. Interestingly, in the case at hand, respondent No.2, even after having departed from her matrimonial house in the year 2009, chose not to file any complaint against the petitioners qua the allegations, as ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2022 20:01:18 :::CIS 13 contained in FIR sought to be quashed. It is in the year 2016, i.e. after 9 years of her having left the matrimonial house, she lodged a complaint against the petitioners, making therein serious allegations of .
cruelty against the petitioners. It is pertinent to take note that prior to lodging of FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, petitioner No.1, who happens to be husband of respondent No.2, filed a private complaint (Annexure P-1) under Sections 494 & 497 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC against respondent No.2 and one Onkar Singh, alleging therein that respondent No.1, without any reasonable and probable cause has withdrawn from the company of petitioner No.1, in the year 2009 and as such, he was compelled to file petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which is pending disposal before learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. and is fixed for 21.10.2016. Petitioner alleged in the aforesaid complaint that respondent No.1 after misusing the provisions of law and procedure has instituted false cases of maintenance as well as under the the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the competent court of law. Petitioner No.1 also alleged that on 10.09.2016, he alongwith his brother and cousin went to meet his son at Village and Post Office Tal, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P., i.e. house of Pritam Chand, where it transpired that respondent No.2 has solemnized marriage with person namely Onkar Singh, during subsistence of her marriage with petitioner No.1. Though aforesaid complaint having been filed by petitioner No.1, came to be dismissed, but it is an admitted fact that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2022 20:01:18 :::CIS 14 proceedings came to be lodged against the petitioners after filing of the aforesaid private complaint at the behest of petitioner No.1. Similarly, it is not in dispute that prior to lodging of FIR sought to be quashed in the .
instant proceedings, respondent No.2, instituted two complaints against the petitioner, seeking therein maintenance, i.e. one under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and second under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
12. No doubt, FIR sought to be quashed, contains allegations of cruelty and beatings, but since, there is a delay of 7 years in filing of FIR and respondent No.2, never came to be subjected to medical test on account of injuries, if any, suffered by her on account of beatings allegedly given by the petitioners, it is not only difficult to prove the charge of cruelty and beatings, but trial initiated on the basis of FIR sought to be quashed is otherwise bound to fail on the ground of delay.
Though Mr. I.S. Chandel, learned counsel representing respondent No.2, vehemently argued that the FIR sought to be quashed contains allegations with regard to hurling of abuses and character assassination allegedly done by the petitioners in the year 2016, but that may not be sufficient to hold petitioners guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, especially, when there is no allegation, if any, with regard to cruelty meted to respondent No.2 on account of bringing less dowry or demand of dowry. Needless to say, it is well settled law that cruelty as defined under Section 498-A, is to be read in the context of cruelty meted out, if any, to the victim on account of bringing less ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2022 20:01:18 :::CIS 15 dowry/demand of dowry. Since there is no allegation, if any, with regard to demand of dowry, case, if any, under Section 498-A, prosecution of the petitioners is bound to fail. Similarly, after 7 years .
of alleged incident of threats, if any extended to respondent No.2 to do away with her life and beatings, if any, given by petitioner No.1, it may not be possible for the prosecution to prove allegations contained in FIR against the accused, that too, in the absence of any medical evidence.
13. Hon'ble Apex Court in Wasim vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019)7SCC435, has held as under:-
"10. The conviction of the Appellant by the Trial Court under Section 498-A was not for demand of dowry. The conviction under Section 498-A was on account of mental cruelty by the Appellant in having an extra marital relation and the threats held out by him to the deceased that he would leave her and marry Poonam. 10. The High Court acquitted the Appellant under Section 306 IPC by reaching a conclusion on the basis of evidence that the charge of abetment of suicide on part of the Appellant was not proved. Without any discussion of the evidence pertaining to demand of dowry and without dealing with the findings recorded by the Trial Court regarding the demand of dowry, the High Court held that the offence under Section 498-A was made out.
11. Cruelty is dealt with in the Explanation to Section 498-A as follows:
498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2022 20:01:18 :::CIS 16
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such .
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
12. Conviction under Section 498-A IPC is for subjecting a woman to cruelty. Cruelty is explained as any willful conduct which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Harassment of a woman by unlawful demand of dowry also partakes the character of 'Cruelty'. It is clear from a plain reading of Section 498-A that conviction for an offence under Section 498-A IPC can be for willful conduct which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide OR for dowry demand. Having held that there is no evidence of dowry demand, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 498-A IPC for his willful conduct which drove the deceased to commit suicide. The Appellant was also convicted under Section 306 IPC as the Trial Court found him to have abetted the suicide by the deceased.
14. The High Court ought not to have convicted the Appellant under Section 498-A for demand of dowry without a detailed discussion of the evidence on record, especially when the Trial Court found that there is no material on record to show that there was any demand of dowry. The High Court did not refer to such findings of the Trial Court and record reasons for its disapproval."
14. Leaving everything aside, case of the prosecution is otherwise bound to fail on the ground of inordinate delay in lodging of ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2022 20:01:18 :::CIS 17 FIR, i.e. delay of 7 years. Respondent No.2 with a view to bring her case within limitation, has levelled allegation of verbal abuses and character assassination allegedly done by the petitioners in the year .
2016, but interestingly, no plausible evidence has been led/collected on record by the prosecution to prove aforesaid allegations against the petitioners.
15. In view of the detailed discussion made above and law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, there is sufficient ground for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, by ordering quashing of FIR and consequent criminal proceedings against the petitioners to prevent abuse of process of law and to prevent unnecessary harassment to the petitioners against whom there is no evidence to connect them with the commission of offences as incorporated in the FIR. Otherwise also, continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in the present case would be a sheer wastage of time of the learned trial Court and the same would amount to subjecting the petitioners to unnecessary and protracted ordeal of trial, which is bound to culminate in acquittal.
16. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed. FIR No.241/2016, dated 24.09.2016, registered at Police Station Hamirpur, H.P. under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 of IPC as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending in the competent court of law are ordered to be quashed and set-aside. Petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed against them in the aforesaid FIR.
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2022 20:01:18 :::CIS 1817. The present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
29th June, 2022
(reena)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2022 20:01:18 :::CIS