Himachal Pradesh High Court
Siddharth Thakur Son Of Sh. Pradeep ... vs State Of H.P. And Others on 8 July, 2015
Author: P.S.Rana
Bench: P.S.Rana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
.
SHIMLA:
Cr.MMO No.82 of 2014.
Order reserved on: 29.5.2015.
Date of Order: July 8,2015.
Siddharth Thakur son of Sh. Pradeep Singh. ...Petitioner.
Vs:
State of H.P. and others.
r .....Non-petitioners.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.S.Rana, Judge.
Whether approved for Reporting?1yes.
For the petitioner: Mr.S.D.Gill, Advocate.
For non-petitioner No.1 Mr.J.S.Guleria, Assistant
Advocate General.
For non-petitioners No.2&3. Mr.Sunil Mohan Goel,
Advocate.
P.S.Rana, Judge.
ORDER:Present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing FIR No. 29 dated 15.2.2013 registered under Section 498A IPC read with 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:39 :::HCHP 2Section 66A of the I.T. Act and for quashing all subsequent .
proceedings relating to FIR No.29. Alternative relief also sought for transfer of trial to another district.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. It is pleaded that petitioner solemnized marriage with non petitioner No.3 Smt. Deva on dated 12.3.2012. It is further pleaded that non petitioner No.2 Ravinder Singh is father-in-law of petitioner. It is further pleaded that petitioner stayed in a hotel at Kullu with non petitioner No.3 Smt. Deva after marriage for couple of days and thereafter petitioner stayed with his relatives at Kullu. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner returned to Canada. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner arrived in India in 2013 and non petitioner No.3 Smt. Deva received petitioner at Airport New Delhi and thereafter petitioner along with non petitioner No.3 Smt. Deva proceeded to Jallandhar and thereafter proceeded to Jammu and thereafter proceeded to Dalhousie and thereafter proceeded back to Jallandhar. It is further pleaded that petitioner is settled in Canada and non petitioner No. 2 and 3 have falsely implicated petitioner in present FIR. It is further pleaded that non petitioner No.2 Ravinder Singh is a ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:39 :::HCHP 3 senior officer in police department exerted his influence. It is .
further pleaded that petitioner is under treatment of alcohol and tobacco. It is further pleaded that petitioner did not commit any criminal offence as alleged in criminal complaint.
It is further pleaded that criminal FIR registered against petitioner just to harass the petitioner in illegal manner.
Prayer for acceptance of petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC sought.
3. Per contra response filed on behalf of non petitioner No.1 pleaded therein that non petitioner No.2 retired from service on dated 31.12.2013. It is denied that criminal case was registered under the influence of non petitioner No.2. It is further pleaded that petitioner stayed with non petitioner No.3 in a resort at Kullu for couple of days after marriage. It is further pleaded that during the investigation it was observed that charges of the resort was paid by non petitioner No.2 Ravinder Singh. It is further pleaded that during investigation it was observed that during the tour to Jammu, Dalhousie and Jallandhar petitioner consumed alcohol and tortured non petitioner No.3 Smt. Deva physically and mentally. It is further pleaded that prima facie ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:39 :::HCHP 4 offence under Section 498A IPC read with Section 66A of .
I.T.Act was proved during investigation and thereafter challan was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kullu against petitioner. It is further pleaded that facts of demand of dowry i.e. finger ring and car proved as per testimony of non petitioner No. 2 and 3 during investigation of case. It is further pleaded that investigating agency had carried investigation in accordance with law without any influence of non petitioner No.2. It is further pleaded that non petitioner No.2 Ravinder Singh did not intervene and did not influence investigation of present case in any manner. It is further pleaded that non petitioner No.2 was not posted as Additional Superintendent of Police at Kullu at the time of lodging FIR. It is further pleaded that Investigating Agency was not under the control of non petitioner No.2 Ravinder Singh. It is further pleaded that at the time of registration of FIR non petitioner No.2 was posted at Mandi HP. It is further pleaded that during investigation it was observed that petitioner after consuming liquor used to harass non petitioner No.3 physically and mentally. It is further pleaded that offence under Section 498A IPC read with Section 66A of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:39 :::HCHP 5 I.T.Act are established prima facie during investigation of .
case. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought.
4. Per contra separate response on behalf of non petitioner No. 2 and 3 filed pleaded therein that marriage was solemnized between petitioner and non petitioner No.3 on dated 12.3.2012 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is further pleaded that after marriage petitioner and non petitioner No.3 stayed in a hotel for a month. It is further pleaded that marriage was also registered before SDM Kullu. It is further pleaded that petitioner after consuming alcohol started torturing non petitioner No.3 physically as well as mentally. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner went back to Canada. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner came to India in January 2013 and non petitioner No.3 had gone to Delhi to receive the petitioner. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner along with non petitioner No.3 visited Jallandhar, Jammu and Chamba. It is further pleaded that most of the time petitioner tortured non petitioner No 3 physically as well as mentally. It is further pleaded that non petitioner No.3 remained hospitalized and thereafter she was brought back to Kullu by non petitioner No.2. It is further ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:39 :::HCHP 6 pleaded that when petitioner and non petitioner No.3 .
remained together in JJ resorts Kullu therein also petitioner tortured non petitioner No.3 physically as well as mentally. It is further pleaded that investigation was carried by investigating agency fairly and strictly in accordance with law.
Prayer for dismissal of petition sought.
5. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of non petitioner No.1 and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non petitioner No. 2 and 3 and also perused entire records carefully.
6. Following points arise for determination in the present petition:
(1) Whether petition filed under Section 482 Cr PC is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition?.
(2) Final Order.
Finding upon Point No.1.
7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that FIR No. 29 dated 15.2.2013 and subsequent criminal proceedings thereon be quashed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:39 :::HCHP 7 mentioned. Court has carefully perused the contents of .
petition filed under Section 482 Cr PC. Court has also carefully perused response filed by non petitioners. Material proposition of facts are affirmed by one party and denied by other party. It is well settled law that material facts asserted by one party and denied by another party cannot be decided by the Court while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. Court is of the opinion that disputed facts asserted by petitioner in petition and denied by non petitioners in response will be decided by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. It was held in AIR 2005 SC 4135 titled State of Punjab Vs. Kasturi Lal and others that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr PC is wide but same should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution. It was held that power should be exercised ex debito justitiae (To do real and substantial justice). Also see AIR 2006 SC 2872 titled Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava. It is well settled law that the rule of inherent power has its source in the maxim "quando lex aliquid alique concedit conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non protest". It was held in case ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:39 :::HCHP 8 reported in AIR 2008 SCW 3771 tilted Renu Kumari Vs. .
Sanjay Kumar and others that in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr PC High Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry whether evidence is reliable or not. It was held in case reported in AIR 1992 SCW 2187 M/s Jayant Vitamins Ltd. Vs. Chaitanyakumar and another that investigation relating to criminal offence is statutory function of the Investigating Agency. See AIR 2006 SC 2825 titled State of Karnataka and another Vs. Pastor P. Raju. It was held in case reported in 1995 SCC (Cri.) 387 titled State of T.N.Thirukkural Perumal that evidence collected by Investigating Officer during investigation should be proved before trial Court. It was held that quashing of proceedings by cutting short normal process of criminal trial is improper.
8. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that non petitioner No.2 Ravinder Singh is the father of non petitioner No.3 Smt. Deva and is posted in police department and he will influence the proceedings of the case and on this ground trial be transferred from District Kullu to some another District is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:39 :::HCHP 9As per response filed by non petitioner No. 1 to 3 it is prima .
facie proved that non petitioner No.2 Ravinder Singh already stood retired from police department on 31.12.2013. It is proved on record that challan also stood filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kullu after completion of investigation. Court is of the opinion that trial will be conducted by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kullu. There is no allegation in the petition against learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kullu. Court is of the opinion that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kullu is under legal obligation to dispose of the case strictly in accordance with law. In view of the fact that non petitioner No.2 Ravinder Singh stood retired on 31.12.2013 it is not expedient in the ends of justice to transfer trial of the case to some another court in the absence of any positive allegation of malafide against learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kullu. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative.
Point No.2 Final Order.
9. In view of my finding upon point No.1 petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC is dismissed. Observation made hereinabove is strictly for the purpose of deciding the present ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:39 :::HCHP 10 petition and shall not effect merits of the case in any manner.
.
Petition filed under Section 482 Cr PC is disposed of. All pending application(s) if any are also disposed of.
(P.S.Rana), Judge.
July 8, 2015(R)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:39 :::HCHP
11
.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:31:39 :::HCHP