High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:136647 Judgment Reserved on :- 22.07.2024 Judgment Delivered on :- 27.08.2024 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19965 of 2024 Applicant :- Atul Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harshit Agarwal,Varad Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vishwa Ratna Dwivedi Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Harshit Agarwal and Sri Varad Nath, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vishwa Ratna Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 22.03.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 26.09.2023, of Case No.91925 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.27 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Pheelkhana, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending before the Court of A.C.J. (S.D.)-04, Kanpur Nagar. 3. Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate appearing for applicant, submitted that no prima- facie case is made out against the applicant. Applicant is husband of the informant/ opposite party no.2 and their marriage has taken place on 06.05.2017. The allegations of dowry demand and harassment of informant levelled against applicant are wholly
Facts
false and improbable. The First Information Report was registered for offences under Sections 498A, 376, 313, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act, wherein, the informant has made various allegations against applicant and his family members but during investigation it was found that there are material discrepancies and inconsistencies in the version of 1 of 9 informant and the allegations regarding offence under Sections 376, 313, 506 I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act were not established and thus, these sections were dropped during investigation and charge-sheet was submitted for offence under section 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C.. It was submitted that the First Information Report was registered by the informant as a vengeance mechanism due to divorce case filed by the applicant under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act. The informant has left her matrimonial home on 05.02.2019 by taking her jewellery and clothes and she has refused to live with applicant however later on she came back to her matrimonial home for some time and an attempt was made to settle the matrimonial dispute but in vain. In the case filed by applicant under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act, the informant had deliberately concealed the fact that charges under Sections 313, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act were dropped from charge-sheet. Earlier applicant has filed a writ petition before this Court for quashing of First Information Report, wherein, this Court has granted relief against arrest of the applicant. During investigation, it was found that the informant was not residing at her parental house rather she was staying in hostel of Amity University, Noida, where she is pursuing her M.Ed. course. During investigation,
Legal Reasoning
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 judgement 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 this connection, a reference may also be made to the case of R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 516, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. K.P.S. Gill (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd vs. Biological E Ltd. & Ors, 2000 SCC (Cri) 615. It has been held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offence, court should not quash the charge sheet/complaint. It is equally well settled that at this stage questions of fact cannot be examined and a mini trial cannot be held. 8. In case of Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana (supra), facts of the case show that marriage of victim with appellant/husband has taken place in the year 2008 and couple lived together for more than a decade and out of that wedlock they have one child. The appellant had filed a divorce petition in July, 2019 on ground of cruelty and appellant’s mother has also filed a case under Domestic Violence Act against informant/wife. It was found that allegations levelled were quite vague, general and sweeping, 4 of 9 specifying no instance of criminal conduct and no specific date or time of alleged incidents was disclosed. The informant/ wife has lodged First Information Report on 09.04.2021. Considering all these facts, Hon’ble Apex Court, referring to several earlier judgments, concluded that if the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue against appellant, the same will be nothing but sort of abuse of process of law and travesty of justice. In that judgment in para Nos.30, 31 and 32, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- 30. In the aforesaid context, we should look into the category 7 as indicated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The category 7 as laid reads thus:— “(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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.” 31. We are of the view that the category 7 referred to above should be taken into consideration and applied in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. If the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of her husband and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence the Court with a view to doing substantial justice should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter. If the submission canvassed by the counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 and the State is to be accepted mechanically then in our opinion the very conferment of the inherent power by the Cr. P.C. upon the High Court would be rendered otiose. We are saying so for the simple reason that if the wife on account of matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband and his family members then the first thing, she would ensure is to see that proper allegations are levelled in the First Information Report. Many times the services of professionals are availed for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However, that does not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are allegations in the First Information Report and the chargesheet papers disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. If the allegations alone as levelled, more particularly in the case like the one on hand, are to be looked into or considered then why the investigating agency thought fit to file a closure report against the other co-accused? There is no answer to this at the end of the learned counsel appearing for the State. We say so, because allegations have been levelled not only against the Appellant herein but even against his parents, brother & sister. If that be so, then why the police did not deem fit to file chargesheet against the other co-accused? It appears that even the investigating agency was convinced that the FIR was nothing but an outburst arising from a matrimonial dispute. 32. Many times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings about complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that comes in the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police, as if the Police is the panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches up to the Police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned. The only reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. However, the Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends. In all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. 5 of 9 9. Keeping aforesaid legal position in view, in the instant case it may be seen that marriage of applicant with informant has taken place on 06.05.2017. The informant has alleged that her parents have incurred expenses of Rs.40 lakhs in marriage but from second day of her marriage the applicant and his family members have harassed the informant on account of dowry. She has further alleged that in January, 2020 while she was pregnant and the accused persons came to know that it was a female child/foetus, they told that they did not need any daughter and she was assaulted by them. She has further alleged that on 01.03.2021 she was turned out from matrimonial home. She has further alleged that the applicant and his family members have told that unless and until the demand of additional dowry is satisfied, they would not allow her to live at matrimonial home. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has supported said version. Thus, it appears that the facts of the above referred case were on different footing then the case in hand. As stated above in case of Achin Gupta (supra), the marriage has taken place in the year 2008 and couple lived together for a considerable long period and they have one child and the first information report was lodged on 09.04.2021. In the instant matter, marriage has taken place in the year 2017 and there is litigation between the parties since the year 2019. It is correct that in the above referred case the husband had filed a divorce petition on ground of cruelty and thereafter first information report was lodged and in the instant case also the first information report was lodged after applicant / husband has filed petition for divorce but in view of attending facts and circumstances and the statement of informant / wife, no such conclusion can be drawn that the impugned proceedings are counterblast to the case filed by the applicant under section 13 Hindu Marriage Act. In case of Achin Gupta (supra), the allegations levelled by the wife were found quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instance of criminal conduct but in the instant case certain specific allegations have been levelled against the applicant. As referred above, informant has alleged 6 of 9 that in month of January 2020 while she was pregnant and the accused persons came to know that it was a female child/foetus, they told that they did not need any daughter and she was assaulted by them and that on 01.03.2021 she was turned out from matrimonial home. She has further alleged that the applicant and his family members have told that unless and until the demand of additional dowry is satisfied, they would not allow her to live at matrimonial home. In view of the facts of the matter, the case of Achin Gupta (supra) does not help the applicant. So far question of alleged payments of money made to the informant is concerned, the alleged payments were shown to be made to the informant in the year 2019 and 2020 and such payments are quite common in a house hold. On the basis of such transactions it could not concluded that the informant was not subjected to cruelty. Considering specific facts of the matter, it can not be said that no prima facie case is made out or that the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused / applicant and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. At this stage it would be pertinent to refer case of State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540, wherein Apex Court has observed that probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance. The relevant passage reads thus: “11. … It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with.” 10. In proceedings under section 482 CrPC it is not desirable for this Court to hold a full-fledged inquiry or to appreciate the evidence, collected by the investigating agency to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The Supreme Court in the case of M.N. Ojha v. Alok Kumar Srivastav reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682 has held that interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can only be where a clear case for 7 of 9 such interference is made out. Frequent and uncalled for interference even at the preliminary stage by the High Court may result in causing obstruction in progress of the inquiry in a criminal case which may not be in the public interest. But at the same time the High Court cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction if the interest of justice so required where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no fair minded and informed observer can ever reach a just and proper conclusion as to the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding. In such cases refusal to exercise the jurisdiction may equally result in injustice more particularly in cases where the complainant sets the criminal law in motion with a view to exert pressure and harass the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint. It is well settled and needs no restatement that the saving of inherent power of the High Court in criminal matters is intended 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. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. [See Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451]. 11. In the instant case in view of allegations levelled against the applicant and perusing the material collected during investigation, it can not be said that no prima facie is made out against the applicant. Similarly it could also not be held that the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide or maliciously instituted for wreaking vengeance on the applicant. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately discerned and 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. 8 of 9 12. In view of aforesaid, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings / charge-sheet or cognizance/summoning order is made out. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit, and thus, liable to be dismissed. However, the applicant would be at liberty to move an application for discharge at appropriate stage in accordance with law and to raise his pleas before the trial Court. 13. The application under Section - 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.08.2024 SP/- 9 of 9
Arguments
informant refused for her medical examination. Learned Senior Advocate has referred details of several transactions of money transfer to the informant made by applicant, which clearly shows that allegations made by informant are not true. In this connection, learned Senior Advocate has also referred copies of bank account statement. In the First Information Report, the informant has raised various allegations against the family members of the applicant but except the applicant, the other family members were exonerated during investigation of all the charges. 4. It is further submitted that applicant is working in Merchant Navy and his marriage was solemnized with informant on 06.05.2017 at Dwarka Prasad Charitable Trust, Kanpur Nagar at the request of father of informant, as he has claimed unstable financial status. The informant has 2 of 9 initiated the criminal proceedings pertaining to this case with mala-fide intention and as a counterblast to the case lodged by applicant under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act. Various material allegations of informant have been found false during investigation and several charges including charge under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act were dropped. Learned counsel has referred facts of the matter as well as the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and submitted that no prima facie case is made out and the impugned proceedings are mala-fide and the same have been instituted with ill-will and malice and thus, the same are liable to be quashed. It was further submitted that on the similar facts the proceedings were quashed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and Ors, MANU/SC/0377/2024. 5. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application and submitted that in the First Information Report there are clear allegations that informant was harassed by the applicant on account of dowry and she has supported that version during investigation. Merely because certain charges have been dropped by the Investigating Officer during investigation or that the co-accused persons were exonerated, it can not be a ground for quashing of proceedings against applicant. It was submitted that applicant is husband of informant and in such matters the case of husband is to be considered at different pedestal from other family members. In view of allegations levelled in the First Information Report, statement of informant recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and statements of other witnesses, a prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. It was submitted that at this stage, matter is not be considered meticulously and only it is to be seen that whether a prima-facie case is made out against the applicant or not. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant has been pronounced in different facts and circumstances and the same is not applicable in the instant matter. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that a 3 of 9 prima-facie case is made out against the applicant and thus, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed. 6. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, first information report 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