High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:181161 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32235 of 2024 Applicant :- Asif And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Riyaz Husain,Sayeed Saif Ullah,Sufia Saba Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ch. Dil Nisar,G.A.,Viresh Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mayank Awasthi, learned Brief Holder for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
Legal Reasoning
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 as well as cognizance order and 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. In view of above, the present application is rejected. Order Date :- 19.11.2024 DS
Arguments
applicants – (1) Asif, (2) Mujammil, (3) Smt. Sanno and (4) Sadakat challenging cognizance order dated 16.08.2024 passed by A.C.J. (Jr. Div.) IVth/ J.M., Court No. 33, Saharanpur and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6446 of 2024, State v. Asif and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A, 354, 354(B) IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police Station Mandi, District Saharanpur. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicants on 20.12.2023 at 17:00 hrs. which was registered as Case Crime No. 382 of 2023 with the allegation that marriage of opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with applicant no. 1 - Asif on 13.07.2017 according to Muslim rites and rituals. Out of their wedlock, the opposite party was blessed with two girl children and they were 4 years and 2 years old at the time of lodging of FIR. The parents of opposite party no. 2 had given jewellery as well as other gift items according to their capability and capacity. The applicants were not happy with the birth of two girls, therefore, they mentally and physically harassed opposite party no. 2 for additional dowry demand. It has been further alleged that Jeth (applicant no. 2) and Chachiya Sasur (applicant no. 4) kept eyeing upon opposite party no. 2. On 12.12.2023 at about 10:30 P.M. when the opposite party no. 2 was sleeping with her two daughters in her room, Jeth and Chachiya Sasur entered her room and closed the door from inside. They caught hold of opposite party no. 2 and touched her delicate parts. They thrashed mouth of opposite party no. 2 and did objectionable acts with her. Accused – Mujammil broke string of her trouser in order to attempt rape upon her. The opposite party no. 2 somehow managed to save herself and came outside the room. She complained about conduct of aforesaid persons to applicant no. 3, mother-in-law. By the time, her husband reached there, all accused persons used un-parliamentary language and had also beaten her. Her husband gave talaq by uttering talaq three times and pushed her outside the house. The opposite party no. 2 shared the entire incident with her parents and, therefore, present FIR was lodged. After investigation a charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A, 354, 354(B) IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 and the applicants have been summoned, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. He requests to send the matter to Mediation and Conciliation Centre for mediation. He has emphasized upon aadhaar card and tried to show that the allegations against applicant no. 4 are bald as he lives separately from other applicants. He has placed statements of independent witnesses, who have also not supported the version of opposite party no. 2 as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has stated that there is no chances of compromise between the parties as the applicant no. 1 has given her talaq by uttering word 'talaq' thrice and the aforesaid fact has not been denied by the applicants. He emphasized upon the statements of opposite party no. 2, wherein she has supported the version of FIR. Relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Kaptan Singh vs. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35, learned AGA submits that in absence of the statements of charge sheet witnesses as well as material collected by the Investigating Officer, the challenge laid to the charge sheet cannot be examined by this Court, therefore, the petition may be dismissed on this ground itself. 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 applicant and trial is 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; (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143, and (ix) M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra; (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315. 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