Allahabad High Court
Sanjeet Kumar Choubey Alias Babloo And 2 ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 February, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 1735
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32910 of 2018 Applicant :- Sanjeet Kumar Choubey Alias Babloo And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Mishra,Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Chandra Dwivedi,Shri Prakash Dwivedi Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shri Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the complaint dated 14.03.2018 and the summoning order dated 23.07.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of of complaint case no. 374 of 2018 (Savita Devi vs. Sanjeet Kumar Choubey and others) under section 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
As per complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2, the opposite party no. 2 was married to the accused-applicant no. 1 on 11.6.2014 according to Hindu rites and on 12.6.2014 she had gone to the matrimonial home. Before the marriage, the accused-applicant had shown their avarice for money and stated that the money which was required to be given at the time of Tilak, should have already been given, thereafter, after arranging some amount, on 19.5.2014, a sum of Rs.49,000/- was credited in the account of Baleshwar Prasad Chaubey father-in-law bearing A/c No. 32462039365 but the accused persons were not satisfied with the said money and one day prior to the marriage i.e. on 10.06.2014, messages were got sent to the complainant that for such small dowry, they would not marry their son and that at the time of Tilak, Rs.51,000/- would have to be paid. This treatment was disliked by the complainant's father and had tried to convince the accused persons that his financial condition was not good and therefore, he would not be in a position to satisfy the said demand but somehow, marriage could be performed on 12.06.2014 and the complainant went to her matrimonial home. Soon thereafter, the accused no.3 Kamla Devi, mother-in-law, accused no. 5, Mamta Devi, 'Jethani' and accused no. 6, Sarla Devi, 'Nand' had mentally and physically tortured the complainant and started passing taunts that nothing was given in dowry and the said accused persons used to permit her to have food only after all other members of the family had taken food and she used to be given residue. It is further mentioned that the complainant went before her father-in-law accused no.2, Baleshwar Prasad Choubey and told him that he was like her father, and will he not support her. Her father-in-law stated that his son was an advocate by profession and he used to go to Court on motorcycle, hence four wheeler should be provided to him and then everything will become all right but she was continued to be tortured mentally by the family members of the accused and after having seen this condition, the father of the complainant had come and had taken her home. The mediator of this marriage Vijay Kumar Choubey was also tried to make compromise between the parties but the accused side remained firm upon their demand to be fulfilled and said that if the said demand is not fulfilled, the complainant would not be allowed to enter the house. The said complaint was registered as a complaint case and the statement of the complainant was recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. which is annexed at page-31 of the paper book and the witnesses Jai Prakash Dubey, father of the deceased and an independent witness Santosh Kumar Jaiswal have been examined under section 202 Cr.PC. as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively. On the basis of these statements, summoning order was passed by the court below vide order dated 23.07.2018 directing the applicants to face trial in the above-mentioned sections.
Learned counsel for the applicant has insisted that he should be allowed time to file rejoinder affidavit while the record reveals that counter affidavit was filed in this case on 22.6.2019 and this fact has been recorded in the order-sheet of this Court dated 12.2.2021 that the counter affidavit has been filed on 26.6.2019. Hence, it was directed that he may argue the case on merit if he wants to argue the same, but he chose not to argue.
Learned counsel for complainant has argued that on the basis of the complaint and the statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., a cognizable offence is made out against the accused-applicants. An effort was made to compromise the matter between the parties and the mater was referred to the Mediation Centre but even mediation has also failed as per the report of the Mediation Centre dated 18.12.2018. In view of this, it is argued that the statements of all the witnesses, who have supported the prosecution version, do make out a cognizable offence against the accused-applicants. There is no case made out for quashing the summoning order.
I have gone through the entire evidence as well as statements of two witnesses, who have supported the complaint's version and on the basis of the said statements, it cannot be denied that a cognizable offence is made out. The appreciation of evidence cannot be made in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as the same would require trial.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the complaint as well as summoning order is refused.
The instant application is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021 AU