Allahabad High Court
Mandeep Singh And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 July, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:121306 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5735 of 2020 Applicant :- Mandeep Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar,Vinod Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. with Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5863 of 2020 Applicant :- Mandeep Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar,Vinod Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anand Vikram Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Court is disposing of above-mentioned both applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. The complainant in both cases is wife of applicant-1. Case set up by complainant in both cases is that she got married with applicant-1 on 01.03.2006, however, surprisingly when complainant filed a complainant, so far as Application u/s 482 No. 5863/2020 is concerned, on 07.01.2019, she has narrated against 10 accused persons including applicant-1 and his 9 close relatives that they have committed an offence u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, however, it appears that she still missed to make some other allegations, therefore, subsequently on 27.06.2019, she has filed another complaint against applicant-1 i.e. her husband and 4 other close relatives that they have committed offence under Section 406 IPC. In both applications, she has mentioned that she was thrown away from her matrimonial home on 22.08.2018.
3. So far as approach of complainant from face of above referred two complaints filed by her is concerned, it is only to implicate her husband and in-laws and other relatives in any manner and to keep him involved in criminal cases at any cost.
4. Notice was issued to opposite party-2 in both applications and matter was referred to Mediation Center vide order dated 13.02.2020 and mediation report dated 04.05.2022 shows that parties were not able to enter into agreement. A vakalatnama is filed in one of case on behalf of opposite party-2 but despite this application is pending for last 4 years and at least for 2 years after mediation was failed, however, till date no counter affidavit has been filed till date. Even today, Sri Anand Vikram Singh, learned counsel for opposite party-2 is not present.
5. I have considered submissions of Sri Vinod Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for applicants that not only statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. in both cases are omnibus but allegations in regard to offence under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC (Application No. 5863/2020) are absolutely not made out as well as summoning order under Section 406 IPC (Application No. 5735/2020) is also not legal since statement of complainant is self contradictory and basic ingredients of Criminal Breach of Trust are missing.
6. Firstly, Court takes note of impugned summoning order dated 20.08.2019 as well as statements recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. in Application No. 5863/2020 and for reference they are quoted below -:
?Order date 20.08.2019 ???????? ??? ???? ????????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????
??????? ??? ????????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? 01.03.2006 ?? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ???? 15 ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ???? 2013 ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? 22.08.2018 ?? ??? ???? 5:30 ??? ???? ??? ????????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ? ???? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?????
???????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??????? 200 ?????????? ????? ????? ??? ???? 202 ?? ??????? ????????? 1 ???? ???? ??? ???????? 2 ??? ???? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????????? ?? ??????? ???? ? ??????, ????? ?????? ?? ???? ? ?????? ?? ????????? ????? ???? ??? ???
???? ????????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ????????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? 200?????????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ????????? 1 ???? ???? ? ????????? 2 ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?????? 202 ????????? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ????????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ????? ????, ?????? ????, ?????????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? 498?,323,506 ??????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????????? ????? ????, ?????? ????, ?????????? ???? ????, ?????? ???? ???? ? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??????????, ?????????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? 498?, 323,506 ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????????? ?????? ???? ???
Statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C.
???? ???????? ???? 200 ?? ???? ???
?????? 30.04.19 ???-??????? ?????? ???? 33 ???? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ??.??.??. ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? 01.03.2006 ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? 15 ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????????? ????? ????, ?????? ???? ???? ????, ?????????? ???? ????, ?????, ?????, ?????? ???? ???? ,???? ????, ?????? ? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ? ??????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???? 4 ??? ???? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???, ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?????? 22.08.2018 ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? 1076 ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? 100 ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??? 22 ????? 2018 ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? 5.30 ??.??. ?? ???
Statement u/s 202 Cr.P.C.
???? ????-202 ????????????
????????0-1 14.05.2019 ???- ???? ???? ???? 49 ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ??.??.??.??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ???? ???? 13 ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????, ????? ????, ?????? ???? ????, ?????, ?????????? ???? ????, ????? ???? (???), ??????, ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? 22.08.2018 ?? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????
7. In aforesaid circumstances, Court considers above referred submissions and finds merit in argument that allegations of offence u/s 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC against applicants i.e. 5 in numbers appear to be of general and omnibus in nature. No injury report has been placed on record as well as there is no explanation why complainant has initiated proceedings after period of 12 years and according to her case, she was also suffering atrocities for last many years. She was allegedly assaulted in the year 2013 and lost eye vision but there is no supporting document on record. She has stated she was assaulted by all accused on 22.08.2018 and was medically examined, however, summoning order does not disclose any such report. Basic ingredients of Section 506 IPC are also not present as there is no intent to alarm. Allegations of cruelty are also general and omnibus. No date, month or year was mentioned.
8. In aforesaid circumstances, facts of present case are squarely covered from facts and law as held in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 as allegations of cruelty are omnibus and general that all accused used to commit cruelty both physical and mental without disclosing date, month or year.
9. So far as Sections 498-A and 506 IPC are concerned, the Court takes note of judgment of Supreme Court in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another, 2024 0 INSC 369 and Mohammad Wajid and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023 INSC 683 respectively.
10. In aforesaid circumstances, allegations made against applicant-1 and others are absolutely not made since respective ingredients of Section 498-A, 323, 506 IPC are not prima facie available.
11. Court now proceeds to consider impugned order dated 27.09.2019 challenged in Application No. 5735 of 2020 as well as statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. which are quoted below -:.
?Order date 27.09.2019 ???????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ????
????????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ???? 1.03.2006 ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ?????? ????-????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? 15 ??? ??? ????????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ??, ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????????? ?? ??? ?????, ??? ??????, ??? ?????? ????, ?????? ??????? ????, ???? ?????????? ???? ???? ??????? ? ?????? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? 22.08.2018 ?? ??????? ?????????? ?? ????????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ?????????? ?? ????????? ?? ??? ???-?????? ?? ?????? ? ????-????? ??, ????? ????????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? 1076 ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ????????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ???? 151 ???????????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ????? ? ???? ????????? ?????? ??????? ?????????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ?????????? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???? ?? ???
????????? ?? ???? ???????? ???? 200 ????????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????????? ?? ????????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ???????????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???? 202 ????????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ????????????? ??? ????????? ????? ????, ?????? ????, ??????? ????, ?????????? ???? ???? ? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? 406 ?? ???????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ???
Statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C.
?????? 06.07.19 ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???? 32 ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??????
???? ???? 1 ????? 2006 ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? 22 ????? 2018 ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???
Statement u/s 202 Cr.P.C.
???? ???????? ???? 202 ??.??.??.??.
???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? 1.3.06 ?? ??????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? 15 ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ??????, ???, ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ???????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??????, ???? ??? ?? 2 ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???, ?????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? 5 ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? (????) ?????? ??? ? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ? ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???
???? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ???????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ?????. ?? ??? ????? 2006 ?? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? 15 ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? 5 ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????????? ???? ??, ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ??? ? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ???
????? ?????? ?????"
12. In present case also, I find merit in argument of learned counsel for applicants that even considering statement of complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C., allegations, if any, are only against applicant-1 i.e. her husband and there is absolutely no averment in regard to allegations of Section 406 IPC qua to other applicants.
13. So far as applicant-1 is concerned, it would be relevant that not only complainant has filed a criminal complaint after about 12 years but she has not even stated that entrustment was on a condition that he has to return dowry items. Such general nature of statement as well as sweeping statements would not complete the ingredients of Section 406 IPC. In this regard, Court takes note of a judgment of Supreme Court in Raju Krishna Shedbalkar vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC Online SC 200.
14. In aforesaid circumstances, even ingredients of Section 406 IPC are also not made out against applicant-1. It would also be relevant to take note that in both cases, substantial part of allegations and statement of complainant were disbelieved such as 'causing miscarriage without consent' and 'she was physically assaulted in 2013' and she was beaten on 22.08.2018 so much that there was heavy bleeding, etc.
15. At this stage, Court also takes note of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 INSC 779 wherein in similar circumstances, the Supreme Court quashed proceedings initiated by wife against husband and in laws at very belated stage that permitting such criminal proceedings to continue would undoubtedly result in a clear and patent injustice and followed various earlier judgments passed on issue. Relevant paragraphs of said judgment are quoted below -:
"12. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu and others [(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others [Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such standard not being confused with the norm formulated in the context of the death penalty. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein, but if the Court thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, and more particularly, the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the Court would have jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
13. Instances of a husband?s family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another [(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that the Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases, as allegations of harassment by husband?s close relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184], this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the ?be all and end all? of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC.
16. Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court in Mahmood Ali and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023) on the legal principles applicable apropos Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines."
16. In view of above, impugned order dated 20.08.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. 723/2019 (Smt. Monika vs. Mandee) u/s 498-A, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station- Babugarh, District- Hapur, pending before Additional Civil Judge (SD)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shamli and impugned order dated 23.07.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. 1716/9 of 2019 (Smt. Monika vs. Mandip) under Section 406 IPC, Police Station- Adarsh Mandi, District- Shamli, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (SD), Shamli and further proceedings thereof are hereby quashed qua to applicants.
17. Both applications are allowed.
18. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
Order Date :- 29.7.2024 N. Sinha