High Court

3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged on

07.07.2023 at 22.15 hours, under Sections 147, 323, 406, 496, 504, 506 I.P.C., against 8 persons including the applicants who are three in number alleging therein that marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with son of applicant nos.2 and 3 about 13 years ago. Out of the wedlock, they are blessed with three children, who were 12 years, 10 years and 8 years at the time of lodging the FIR. Husband of opposite party no.2 expired on 01.06.2020, after which as per wishes of the family members the opposite party no.2 was asked to remain as wife of her devar Khemkaran. Accordingly, she started staying as wife of Khemkaran. It has further been alleged that all the insurance money was taken by the in-laws. On

08.06.2023, the entire family of her husband met and altogether decided to perform marriage of Khemkaran with some other girl. They disclosed that one family was ready for marriage of Khemkaran with the girl in their family and were ready to give good dowry as well as money. Thus the applicants threw the opposite party no.2 along with her two daughters from the house, after retaining one daughter. She was forced to leave the house along with her two daughters without giving her anything. Khemkaran established physical relationship with her during the period of her stay as his wife, as agreed as per the wishes of the family members. The opposite party no.2 managed to reach her parents' place. The brother of opposite party no.2 went to the applicant's place requesting them to keep her as daughter-in-law as she was staying as wife of Khemkaran as per their wishes. He was abused and humiliated and asked to leave the house. The marriage of Khemkaran was solemnized with some other girl on

24.06.2024, thus, all the accused persons have harassed her in so many ways after death of her husband and have taken away all her belongings as well as the money as received from the insurance policy of her husband.

4. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted on

04.09.2023 and applicants have been summoned on 15.07.2023, hence, the present application.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present case has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations against the entire family members whereas charge sheet has been submitted only against the applicants who are three in number which itself goes to show that FIR has been lodged to exert pressure upon the applicants. He further submits that husband of opposite party no.2 died under suspicious circumstances, for which an FIR was lodged on the same day on 01.06.2020 in which the family of opposite party no.2 is facing trial. The present FIR has been lodged as counterblast to the FIR as lodged by applicant-1, father-in-law of opposite party no.2. Emphasizing upon the statement of opposite party no.2, he submits that no money of insurance policy was taken by the applicants as on the specific question as raised by the Investigating Officer, she is not able to give any details of the policy and does not have the documents. There is no injury as caused to opposite party no.2. No offence under the relevant sections is made out. Several other grounds have been taken on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per records, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon in the affidavit. He further submits that the summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse of the process of Court.

6. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that from the version of the FIR as well as statements, charge sheet has been submitted against Gangaram, Somvati and Khemkaran the applicants in the present case, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and Devar, hence, prima facie case is made out against them. The opposite party no.2 was asked to remain as wife of Khemkaran applicant-3 hence it can be said that it is a form of harassment to the opposite party no.2 for reasons as detailed in the FIR. There is nothing on record to show that the applicants have not taken insurance policy as alleged in the FIR. From the version of the FIR, statement of victim opposite party no.2 as well as statement of charge sheet witnesses offence under the relevant sections is made out. As regards the submission of learned counsel for the applicants regarding the FIR lodged by the applicant no.1 for death of his son at his sasural, parents place of opposite party no.2, it has not yet been proved that the opposite party no.2 or her family members are responsible for his death, hence, it cannot be said that the present case has been lodged as a counterblast. He further submits that all the other contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

8. This Court finds that the averments made in the application as well as grounds taken 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 (ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315.

9. 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.

10. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order 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.

11. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Rahul.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged on

07.07.2023 at 22.15 hours, under Sections 147, 323, 406, 496, 504, 506 I.P.C., against 8 persons including the applicants who are three in number alleging therein that marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with son of applicant nos.2 and 3 about 13 years ago. Out of the wedlock, they are blessed with three children, who were 12 years, 10 years and 8 years at the time of lodging the FIR. Husband of opposite party no.2 expired on 01.06.2020, after which as per wishes of the family members the opposite party no.2 was asked to remain as wife of her devar Khemkaran. Accordingly, she started staying as wife of Khemkaran. It has further been alleged that all the insurance money was taken by the in-laws. On

08.06.2023, the entire family of her husband met and altogether decided to perform marriage of Khemkaran with some other girl. They disclosed that one family was ready for marriage of Khemkaran with the girl in their family and were ready to give good dowry as well as money. Thus the applicants threw the opposite party no.2 along with her two daughters from the house, after retaining one daughter. She was forced to leave the house along with her two daughters without giving her anything. Khemkaran established physical relationship with her during the period of her stay as his wife, as agreed as per the wishes of the family members. The opposite party no.2 managed to reach her parents' place. The brother of opposite party no.2 went to the applicant's place requesting them to keep her as daughter-in-law as she was staying as wife of Khemkaran as per their wishes. He was abused and humiliated and asked to leave the house. The marriage of Khemkaran was solemnized with some other girl on

24.06.2024, thus, all the accused persons have harassed her in so many ways after death of her husband and have taken away all her belongings as well as the money as received from the insurance policy of her husband.

4. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted on

04.09.2023 and applicants have been summoned on 15.07.2023, hence, the present application.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present case has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations against the entire family members whereas charge sheet has been submitted only against the applicants who are three in number which itself goes to show that FIR has been lodged to exert pressure upon the applicants. He further submits that husband of opposite party no.2 died under suspicious circumstances, for which an FIR was lodged on the same day on 01.06.2020 in which the family of opposite party no.2 is facing trial. The present FIR has been lodged as counterblast to the FIR as lodged by applicant-1, father-in-law of opposite party no.2. Emphasizing upon the statement of opposite party no.2, he submits that no money of insurance policy was taken by the applicants as on the specific question as raised by the Investigating Officer, she is not able to give any details of the policy and does not have the documents. There is no injury as caused to opposite party no.2. No offence under the relevant sections is made out. Several other grounds have been taken on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per records, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon in the affidavit. He further submits that the summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse of the process of Court.

6. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that from the version of the FIR as well as statements, charge sheet has been submitted against Gangaram, Somvati and Khemkaran the applicants in the present case, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and Devar, hence, prima facie case is made out against them. The opposite party no.2 was asked to remain as wife of Khemkaran applicant-3 hence it can be said that it is a form of harassment to the opposite party no.2 for reasons as detailed in the FIR. There is nothing on record to show that the applicants have not taken insurance policy as alleged in the FIR. From the version of the FIR, statement of victim opposite party no.2 as well as statement of charge sheet witnesses offence under the relevant sections is made out. As regards the submission of learned counsel for the applicants regarding the FIR lodged by the applicant no.1 for death of his son at his sasural, parents place of opposite party no.2, it has not yet been proved that the opposite party no.2 or her family members are responsible for his death, hence, it cannot be said that the present case has been lodged as a counterblast. He further submits that all the other contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

8. This Court finds that the averments made in the application as well as grounds taken 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 (ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315.

9. 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.

10. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order 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.

11. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Rahul.