Sonam & Ors v. State of Bihar & Ors
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113469 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21438 of 2024 Applicant :- Snehpreet And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Chitranshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings, including cognizance/summoning
Facts
order dated 10.10.2019, of Case No. 2118 of 2019, arising out of case crime no. 762 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-I, Bareilly.
Legal Reasoning
prima facie case is made out against them. Applicants are husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of opposite party no. 2/informant respectively. Victim has not sustained any injury. It was submitted that trial is pending since the year 2019 but no witness is appearing for evidence before the trial court. It was further submitted that in respect of applicant nos. 2 and 3 only vague allegations have been levelled and thus, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that in the first information report itself there are allegations that informant was being harassed on account of dowry by all the three accused persons. Applicants used to demand Rs. 10 lacs as dowry and that they used to administer some intoxicant to the victim/informant. It is further submitted that the case is pending since the year 2019 and charges have already been framed and the case is fixed for prosecution evidence. It was submitted that in view of the allegations levelled in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR 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 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. 7. In the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution. 19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR. Respondent No. 1 i.e., the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the Ld. Principal Judge Purnea, to not harass the Respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 01.04.19, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17." 8. In the instant matter, it may be stated that the case is pending against the applicants since the year 2019 and the charges were framed on 30.01.2023. It would be pertinent to mention that there is nothing to show that applicants have challenged the order by means of which charges have been framed against them and that order is also not being impugned in the present case. Applicants are husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of opposite party no. 2/informant. There are specific allegations against all the accused persons that they used to demand Rs. 10 lacs from the informant as additional dowry and they also used to administer some intoxicant to her. Informant has further alleged that her mother-in-law and father-in-law used to abuse her and on 20.11.2018 she was turned out from her matrimonial home. Considering the allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned/adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. In the instant matter, in view of allegations made in the first information report and the material collected during investigation, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. Hence, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out and the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 16.7.2024 Anand
Arguments
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the allegations levelled against the applicants are wholly false and no