Sonam & Ors v. State of Bihar & Ors
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:128455 1 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23671 of 2024 Applicant :- Munni Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari 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 charge-sheet dated 05.09.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 24.08.2023, of Criminal Case No.
Facts
203034 of 2023, arising out of case crime no. 111 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-II, Kanpur Nagar. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that
Legal Reasoning
applicants are innocent and no prima facie case is made out against them. Applicants are mother-in-law and father-in-law of informant. The marriage of informant with son of applicants has taken place in the year 2016 and it cannot be believed that after passing of so long period, applicants would demand dowry or harass the informant. The allegations of dowry demand and harassment of informant are wholly false and improbable. It was further submitted that alleged incident of assaulting the informant has been shown of 17.11.2021 but first information report has been lodged after three months on 26.02.2022 and this long delay in lodging of the first information report has not been explained. Referring to these facts, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the following case laws:- 2 (i) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 (ii) Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 181 (iii) Om Narain Tripathi & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr., [Application u/s 482 No. 2171 of 2018], decided on 29.01.2024 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in view of the allegations made in the first information report and material collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants. It was further submitted that in the first information report as well as in her statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., informant has made specific allegations against applicants. It was pointed out that the informant has alleged in her statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., that applicant no. 2 has tried to throw her from the roof and applicant no. 1 used to abuse her. 5. 6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: “there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” 3 days in chasing their cases in different courts.” The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.” 7. In the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has referred several other judgements and observed as under:- “18. 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.” Similarly, in the case of Om Narain Tripathi & Anr. (Supra), this 8. Court has referred the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others (supra) and held as under:- “12. It is to be seen that the general and vague allegation in respect of a matrimonial dispute against in-laws is indicative of the fact that the allegations are founded in order to enhance the gravity of the offence. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has quashed the criminal proceedings against the in-laws on the ground of allegations being vague and general in nature without satisfaction.” 9. In the aforesaid case laws it was observed that there is tendency of implicating all relatives of husband in matrimonial dispute and false implication by way of general and omnibus allegations made in case of matrimonial dispute, if left uncheck would result misuse of the process of law. It was further observed that the Apex Court by way of judgements has warned the Courts from proceeding against relatives and in-laws of husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the informant has inter-alia made allegations that she was harassed by the accused persons on account of dowry and that her father-in-law (applicant no. 2), in influence of liquor, has torn her clothes. She has further alleged that all her jewellery was taken away by applicants and that she was not allowed by the applicants to enter into matrimonial home. In her statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., informant has inter-alia stated that her father-in-law used to 4 consume liquor and he has tried to throw her from the roof and her mother- in-law has abused her. She has made allegations of abusing and ‘cherchhar’ against her father-in-law (applicant no. 2) and thus, it appears that there are specific allegations against the applicants. In view of the specific allegations levelled against the applicants, the aforesaid case laws, relied by learned counsel for the applicants, do not help 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, no case for quashing of proceedings is made out by invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, the applicants would be at liberty to raise their pleas at the time of charge or they may file an application for discharge in accordance with law. Hence, the prayer as made above is hereby refused. 10. However, it is directed that in case, applicants move an appropriate application for discharge within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. For a period of three weeks from today and in case, such an application is moved within the aforesaid period, till the disposal of such application, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants, provided applicants co-operate in early disposal of the discharge application. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is