Smt. Neeraj v. Rahul and others), under Sections
Case Details
Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31274 of 2024 Applicant :- Rahul And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jeetendra Kumar Sharma,Laxmi Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Jeetendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Triloki Singh, learned A.G.A for the State. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 06.05.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C. 14th Finance Commission / Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya in Complaint Case No. 9931 of 2022 (Smt. Neeraj Vs. Rahul and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Phaphund, District-Auraiya, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C. 14th Finance Commission / Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.1 is the husband of opposite party no.2 and the marriage between two were solemnized on 20.04.2022 and with the passage of time the relations between the two became strained. Therefore the present case has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. He further submits that applicant nos. 2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2 and the allegations levelled against them, are general and vague with no specificity. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464. He next submits that similarly in Taramani Parakh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260, the Apex Court again struck a note not to indiscriminately quash the proceedings against the relatives of the husband in a matrimonial dispute on the strength of Geeta Mehrotra (supra). Paragraph-12 of Taramani Parakh (supra) reads as under:- "12. In Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.2055 of 2014 decided on 6.9.2014), it was observed: "9. We have gone through the FIR and the criminal complaint. In the FIR, the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have been named without attributing any specific role to them. The relationship of the appellants with the husband of the complainant is distant. In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2000) 5 SCC 207], it was observed:- "5.....A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in- laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case." The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role. The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are well known. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the criminal proceedings are abuse of Court's process, quashing jurisdiction can be exercised. Reference may be made to K. Ramakrsihna and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. [(2000) 8 SCC 547], Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749], State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [(1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335]." Apart from the above, learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance upon the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mirza Iqbal @ Golu & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2786 of 2019 decided on 14th December, 2021, wherein the Apex Court has observed that having regard to the case of the appellants and the material placed on record, we are of the considered view that except vague and bald allegations against the appellants, there are no specific allegations disclosing the involvement of the appellants to prosecute them for the offences alleged. In the said case, the Apex Court has held that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (Supra), which squarely applies to the case of the appellants, we are of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings.
Decision
In view of the above, the matter requires consideration in respect of the applicant nos. 2 and 3 only. Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date. List after three months before appropriate Court. In the meantime, opposite party no.2 may file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed thereafter. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant nos. 2 and 3, namely, Devendra Kumar and Rekha Devi in the aforesaid case. However, the prayer in respect of the applicant no.1, Rahul, is refused. It is directed that if applicant no.1 appears and surrenders before the concerned court below within two weeks from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant no.1 before the concerned Court below and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. However, in case, he does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him. The application at the behest of applicant no.1 stands disposed of. The matter shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench. Order Date :- 24.9.2024 SK Srivastava