High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176845 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20909 of 2024 Applicant :- Harendra And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Rajendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. No.113/2023, dated 27.06.2023 The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the and charge-sheet cognizance/summoning order dated 22.09.2023 as well as the entire proceedings of Case Crime No.123 of 2023 (State Vs. Sanju and Others), under Sections 498A, 494 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Collector Bookganj, District-Bareilly, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Bareilly. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged on 06.05.2023 at about 14:13 hrs by the opposite party no.2 against six named accused including the applicants though an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging therein that the marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with Harendra on 26.04.2018 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals, in which her parents had given the dowry as per their capacity, but the family members of her in-laws including husband were not happy with the dowry and they tortured her for non-fulfillment of additional dowry demand i.e. two lakhs rupees. Harendra performed second marriage and they sold opposite party no.2 to one Sanju taking three lakhs rupees. Sanju took opposite party no.2 outside the district and threatened her life in case she raised any objection or disclosed the aforesaid fact with anyone. Sanju also committed rape upon her. After sometime, Sanju sold her to some other person. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 managed to save her life and reached her parents' place and stated the entire story. It is further alleged that Sanju, Harendra and their friends were trying to trace opposite party no.2 after they came to know that she has run away from the clutches of the person to whom Sanju had sold. An application was given by the opposite party no.2 to the police personnel on 05.01.2023, however, when nothing was done, an application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed. Hence the present FIR has been lodged. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted on 27.06.2023 only against four persons. The married sisters-in-law have been exonerated as there were no allegations against them in the FIR nor in the statement of informant as well as witnesses. The applicants have been summoned on 22.09.2024, therefore, the present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations as the real fact is that the opposite party no.2 had an affair with Sanju, who is friend of the husband and she ran away after which husband has performed second marriage. He further submits that there are general and vague allegations against mother-in-law and father-in- law of opposite party no.2. The named accused Sanju had already been enlarged on bail. Relying upon the statement of maternal uncle of opposite party no.2, he submits that all the allegations as made in the FIR are false. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He, therefore, submits that the charge-sheet, summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that though there are general allegations against mother-in-law and father-in-law regarding demand of additional dowry, however, there is specific allegation of harassment of opposite party no.2 by the applicants by way of selling her to one Sanju, who happened to be friend of applicant no.1-Harendra (husband of opposite party no.2). From the statements of the opposite party no.2 recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it is clear that the applicants have mentally and physically harassed the opposite party no.2 by way of selling her to one Sanju, who has exploited her. Even otherwise, it is admitted case that husband has performed second marriage without obtaining divorce from opposite party no.2 for which all the applicants are responsible. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicants for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:- (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866, (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122, (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682, (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454, (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and laslty (ix) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 27.06.2023 and cognizance order dated 22.09.2023 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 11.11.2024 Jitendra/-