Criminal Case No. 4051 of 2023 · High Court

Judgment

1. List revised. None appears on behalf of the applicants to press this case. Learned A.G.A. is present.

2. The instant application has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 07.12.2022 as well as cognizance order dated 10.08.2023 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Bansi, Siddharth Nagar and the proceeding of Criminal Case No.4051 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.302 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Bansi, District-Siddharth Nagar, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Bansi, Siddharth Nagar.

3. Perusal of the order sheet goes to show that on 14.11.2024, the following order was passed:- "List revised. None appeared on behalf of the applicants to press this case.

Mr. Mohd. Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the State is present. In the interest of justice, put up this case on 13.12.2024, as fresh."

4. On 13.12.2024, the following order was passed:- "As prayed by Mr. Ravindra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sanjay Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, put up this case on 17.01.2025, as fresh."

5. Today, also none is present even in the revised call on behalf of the applicants.

6. Learned A.G.A. points out that applicant is the husband against whom there are specific allegations of mental and physical harassment of opposite party raising dowry demand, therefore, all the offences alleged against the applicants are made out. From the statement of opposite party no.2 also it is the prima facie offence made out. He further submits that statements of charge sheet witnesses have not been annexed and the material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation on the basis of which, he has formed an opinion against the applicants, has neither been detailed in the affidavit accompanying of present application nor the copies of the same have been brought on record. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35, it is thus urged by the learned AGA that in the absence of above, the challenge laid to the charge sheet cannot be examined by this Court.

7. He further submits that the Court cannot look into the fact as to whether the charge sheet so filed is proper or not as the same has to be decided by the trial court, thus no interference is required in such cases as the present one. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for the asking. The aforesaid has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335. Said view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Ramveer Upadhyay & another vs. State of U.P. & another reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 396.

8. Learned A.G.A. also submits that all the other contentions relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, 2 it cannot be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants.

9. Perused the record.

10. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicant's 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, cognizance and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to commence only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 is not only malicious but also are abuse of the 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, (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 and lastly 3 (ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315.

11. 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.

12. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated

07.12.2022, summoning order dated 10.08.2023 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.

13. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Rahul. 4

Mr. Mohd. Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the State is present. In the interest of justice, put up this case on 13.12.2024, as fresh."

4. On 13.12.2024, the following order was passed:- "As prayed by Mr. Ravindra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sanjay Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, put up this case on 17.01.2025, as fresh."

5. Today, also none is present even in the revised call on behalf of the applicants.

6. Learned A.G.A. points out that applicant is the husband against whom there are specific allegations of mental and physical harassment of opposite party raising dowry demand, therefore, all the offences alleged against the applicants are made out. From the statement of opposite party no.2 also it is the prima facie offence made out. He further submits that statements of charge sheet witnesses have not been annexed and the material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation on the basis of which, he has formed an opinion against the applicants, has neither been detailed in the affidavit accompanying of present application nor the copies of the same have been brought on record. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35, it is thus urged by the learned AGA that in the absence of above, the challenge laid to the charge sheet cannot be examined by this Court.

7. He further submits that the Court cannot look into the fact as to whether the charge sheet so filed is proper or not as the same has to be decided by the trial court, thus no interference is required in such cases as the present one. Even though, the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to interfere with criminal proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for the asking. The aforesaid has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335. Said view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Ramveer Upadhyay & another vs. State of U.P. & another reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 396.

8. Learned A.G.A. also submits that all the other contentions relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, 2 it cannot be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants.

9. Perused the record.

10. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicant's 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, cognizance and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to commence only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 is not only malicious but also are abuse of the 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, (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 and lastly 3 (ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315.

11. 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.

12. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated

07.12.2022, summoning order dated 10.08.2023 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.

13. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Rahul. 4