B IPC. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:169636 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33147 of 2024 Applicant :- Krishnawati Devi Alias Annu Tiwari And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Mishra,Suneel Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire material available on record.
Facts
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding as well as charge sheet dated 06.06.2024 along with Cognizance order dated 07.06.2024 passed by C.J.M., Mirzapur in Case No.3411 of 2023 (State vs. Deepak Tiwari and others), arising out of Case Crime No.42 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Mirzapur as well as stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that as per version of FIR, the marriage of daughter of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the son of applicant no.1 on 20.05.2022 accordingly to Hindu Rites and Rituals whereby the parents of the deceased beared all the expenses incurred during the marriage. After the marriage, the deceased was being tortured for non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry. On 01.03.2024, the deceased informed her mother on phone call that the family of her husband tortures her and she does not want to stay at her in-laws house. He further submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He, therefore, submits that the charge-sheet, summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court.
Legal Reasoning
prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appears to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused/applicants. 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. 11. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 06.06.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 07.06.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage. 12. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 23.10.2024 Kalp Nath Singh
Arguments
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that dowry death of deceased has been committed within two years of marriage. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relates to disputed questions of fact. The trial court has rightly summoned the applicants, therefore, no interference is required at this stage. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. 6. Before proceeding further, I would like to discuss the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 304-B IPC. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Singh V. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 6 SCC 477 has held in para 9 which is being reproduced as under:- "9. The ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B IPC have been stated and restated in many judgments. There are four such ingredients and they are said to be: (a) death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or her death must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; (b) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (c) Soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and (d) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand for dowry." 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar V. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 12 SCC 350 has held in para 24 which is being reproduced as under:- "24. Of course, deemed fiction would introduce a rebuttable presumption and the husband and his relatives may, by leading their defence and proving that the ingredients of Section 304B were not satisfied, rebut the same. While referring to raising of presumption under Section 304B of the Code, this Court, in the case of Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2004) 9 SCC 157, stated the following ingredients which should be satisfied: 1) The question before the Court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304B IPC). 2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. 3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. 4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death." 8. Law is settled on the point that in case the prosecution succeeds to prove that the deceased died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage and there was demand of dowry and consequential ill treatment and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry then presumption shall be raised against the family members that they have committed her dowry death. 9. From perusal of the records, this Court finds that the deceased died within two years of her marriage and the post-mortem shows her unnatural death. The submissions made by the applicants' 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 applicants and trial is to yet to conclude, 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 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, and laslty (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143. 10. 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