Allahabad High Court
Kanhaiya Lal Patel And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 August, 2020
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 50 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8484 of 2020 Applicant :- Kanhaiya Lal Patel And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Srivastava,Vishal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhiraj Srivastava Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 991 of 2017 (Suneeta Patel Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Patel and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Karchana, District Allahabad pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, District Allahabad as well as to quash the summoning order dated 15.01.2018 passed in the aforesaid case.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. None appears for the opposite party no.2 even in the revised reading of list.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the marriage of applicant no.1 was solemnied with opposite party no.2 in the year 2013 and that she remained with him for only 14 days. Learned counsel further submits that applicant no.1 filed application under Section 13 of Hindu of Marriage Act on 03.05.2016, thereafter impugned complaint was filed on 15.06.2017 on false and baseless allegations. It was submitted that in the meantime, exparte decree of divorce was granted on 08.11.2019. It has been submitted that without there being any cogent evidence regarding any demand of dowry or harassment, the applicants have been illegally summoned vide order dated 15.01.2018. It was next stated that in view of facts of the case, no prima facie case is made out against the applicants and therefore, the impugned complaint as well as summoning order are liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A., has opposed the application and argued that allegations made in the complaint makes out a prima facie case against the applicants. It was further submitted that applicants have been summoned after following the due procedure and after considering the statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and therefore prima facie offence is disclosed against the applicants, hence the impugned proceedings and summoning order are not liable to be quashed.
It is apparent from record that opposite party no.2 has filed impugned complaint while marriage was subsisting and there are allegations for demand of dowry and harassment against applicants. Record further shows that opposite party no.2 as well as witness have supported the version of complaint in their statements recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. and that restoration application for recall of exparte decree of divorce is also pending.
The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with malafide and 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.
After considering arguments raised by the learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, this Court does not find it to be a case which can be determined or gone into in an application under Section 482 CrPC. This Court cannot hold a parallel trial in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No such ground appears to be available to the applicant, on the basis of which the impugned complaint can be quashed going by the settled law in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283.
Similarly so far as the impugned summoning order is concerned, perusal of material on record shows that the impugned order has been passed by applying due procedure and no substantial illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out. It is well settled that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised by the High Court, interalia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC are very wide but the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The inherent power cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Such powers have to be exercised only to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case no case for quashing of impugned order or for grant of any other relief is made out.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the impugned complaint as well as summoning order is refused.
However, keeping in view the facts of the matter and impact of Covid-19 Pandemic, it is directed that in case applicants appear and surrender before the Court below and apply for bail within a period of 45 days from today, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of 45 days from today or till the applicants surrender before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
The party may file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicants.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
With the aforesaid direction, the application is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 27.8.2020/S.Ali