The Apex Court in the case of Dhanlakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Judgment
1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA-I for the State, and perused the record.
2. The applicants have preferred instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing validity of cognizance/ summoning order dated
03.04.2024 passed in Case No. 13845 of 2024, State v. Irfan and others, charge sheet dated 06.08.2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 823 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 494 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Ujhani, District Budaun and the proceedings of said case.
Brief facts of the case are that a first information report1 was lodged by opposite party no. 2 on 28.11.2022 at 17:33 hours, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354, 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Ujhani, District Budaun, against 10 named persons with the allegation that the marriage of applicant no. 1 was solemnized with O.P. No. 2 on
19.06.2020 according to Muslim rites and rituals. The parents of O.P. No. 2 spent about Rs. 8 lakh in the marriage, however, an additional dowry demand of Swift Car and One Lakh Rupees was raised by the alleged accused persons. On 23.03.2021 the O.P. No. 2 was thrown out of the house without giving anything. It has further been alleged that while she was being beaten by her Dewar Farman and Phufiya Sasur Mushir, family members of O.P. No. 2 reached there and called the police. The 1 FIR 2 police personnel without taking any action against Dewar and Phufiya Sasur let them free. Since then she is staying with her parents. The applicant no. 1 had performed second marriage with Sanavi - applicant no. 7. Husband - Irfan, father-in-law Jakaullah, brother-in-law Arif, Dewar Farman, mother-in-law Nyajwano alias Chhoti, sister-in-law Aaysha, all were present at the time of second marriage of applicant no.
1. Family members of O.P. No. 2, after coming to know about the second marriage, went to the applicants' place to ask the reason why this act has been done, on which the applicants assaulted O.P. No. 2 as well as her mother and abused them and they tore their clothes. On hearing noise, nearby persons reached there and rescued them. In the aforesaid incident, O.P. No.2, her brother and mother sustained serious injuries. After investigation, chargesheet has been submitted only against seven persons who are the applicants in the present case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. No injury has been sustained by O.P. No. 2 or any of her family member. It is submitted that the applicant no. 1 had performed second marriage with applicant no. 7, however, submits that the offence under Section 494 IPC is only made out against the applicant (husband), therefore, applicant nos. 2 to 7, who are family members cannot be held guilty for offence under Section 494 IPC as per ingredients of the said sections as well as settled proposition of law.
5. Learned A.G.A. submits that from the version of FIR, statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as the statements of chargesheet witnesses, offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act is made out against applicant nos. 2 to 7 and they have been summoned in the said sections only. 3
6. Learned A.G.A. further submits that apart from the aforesaid sections, the applicant no. 1 (husband) has been summoned under Section 494 IPC also as is the admitted case of learned counsel for the applicants as well as the statements of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the statements of chargesheet witnesses, that second marriage has been performed in the presence of other parties, therefore, offence under Section 494 IPC is made out.
7. From the injury report as placed as Annexure-4, it cannot be said that it is a case of no injury. Report has not been placed on record by learned counsel for the applicants, therefore, the contentions of learned counsel for the applicants that it is a case of no injury, can be looked into by the court concerned.
8. Section 494 IPC says about punishment for second marriage, in case it is void by reason of its taking place during the life of husband or wife. It would be apt to reproduce Section 494 IPC, which reads thus: “494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.---Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
9. The Apex Court in the case of Dhanlakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others2, wherein offence under Sections 494, 496, 498-A, 112, 120-B IPC was involved, has held that exercise of powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous. The Court has further held that in the absence of circumstances to hold prima facie that the complaint is frivolous when the complaint does disclose the commission of an offence there is no justification for the High Court to interfere with. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgement reads thus: 2 1990 (Supp) SCC 686 4 “3. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court.
4. The High Court without proper application of the principles that have been laid down by this Court in Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar3, S. Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi4 and Municipal Corporationof Delhi v. Purshotam Dass Jhunjunwala5 proceeded to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all the probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrived at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed against all the respondents. The High Court was clearly in error in assessing the material before it and concluding that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. We find there are specific allegations in the complaint disclosing the ingredients of the offence taken cognizance of. It is for the complainant to substantiate the allegations by evidence at a later stage. In the absence of circumstances to hold prima facie that the complaint is frivolous when the complaint does disclose the commission of an offence there is no justification for the High Court to interfere.” (emphasis supplied)
10. 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 3 4 5
Brief facts of the case are that a first information report1 was lodged by opposite party no. 2 on 28.11.2022 at 17:33 hours, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354, 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Ujhani, District Budaun, against 10 named persons with the allegation that the marriage of applicant no. 1 was solemnized with O.P. No. 2 on
19.06.2020 according to Muslim rites and rituals. The parents of O.P. No. 2 spent about Rs. 8 lakh in the marriage, however, an additional dowry demand of Swift Car and One Lakh Rupees was raised by the alleged accused persons. On 23.03.2021 the O.P. No. 2 was thrown out of the house without giving anything. It has further been alleged that while she was being beaten by her Dewar Farman and Phufiya Sasur Mushir, family members of O.P. No. 2 reached there and called the police. The 1 FIR 2 police personnel without taking any action against Dewar and Phufiya Sasur let them free. Since then she is staying with her parents. The applicant no. 1 had performed second marriage with Sanavi - applicant no. 7. Husband - Irfan, father-in-law Jakaullah, brother-in-law Arif, Dewar Farman, mother-in-law Nyajwano alias Chhoti, sister-in-law Aaysha, all were present at the time of second marriage of applicant no.
1. Family members of O.P. No. 2, after coming to know about the second marriage, went to the applicants' place to ask the reason why this act has been done, on which the applicants assaulted O.P. No. 2 as well as her mother and abused them and they tore their clothes. On hearing noise, nearby persons reached there and rescued them. In the aforesaid incident, O.P. No.2, her brother and mother sustained serious injuries. After investigation, chargesheet has been submitted only against seven persons who are the applicants in the present case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. No injury has been sustained by O.P. No. 2 or any of her family member. It is submitted that the applicant no. 1 had performed second marriage with applicant no. 7, however, submits that the offence under Section 494 IPC is only made out against the applicant (husband), therefore, applicant nos. 2 to 7, who are family members cannot be held guilty for offence under Section 494 IPC as per ingredients of the said sections as well as settled proposition of law.
5. Learned A.G.A. submits that from the version of FIR, statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as the statements of chargesheet witnesses, offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act is made out against applicant nos. 2 to 7 and they have been summoned in the said sections only. 3
6. Learned A.G.A. further submits that apart from the aforesaid sections, the applicant no. 1 (husband) has been summoned under Section 494 IPC also as is the admitted case of learned counsel for the applicants as well as the statements of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the statements of chargesheet witnesses, that second marriage has been performed in the presence of other parties, therefore, offence under Section 494 IPC is made out.
7. From the injury report as placed as Annexure-4, it cannot be said that it is a case of no injury. Report has not been placed on record by learned counsel for the applicants, therefore, the contentions of learned counsel for the applicants that it is a case of no injury, can be looked into by the court concerned.
8. Section 494 IPC says about punishment for second marriage, in case it is void by reason of its taking place during the life of husband or wife. It would be apt to reproduce Section 494 IPC, which reads thus: “494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.---Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
9. The Apex Court in the case of Dhanlakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others2, wherein offence under Sections 494, 496, 498-A, 112, 120-B IPC was involved, has held that exercise of powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous. The Court has further held that in the absence of circumstances to hold prima facie that the complaint is frivolous when the complaint does disclose the commission of an offence there is no justification for the High Court to interfere with. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgement reads thus: 2 1990 (Supp) SCC 686 4 “3. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court.
4. The High Court without proper application of the principles that have been laid down by this Court in Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar3, S. Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi4 and Municipal Corporationof Delhi v. Purshotam Dass Jhunjunwala5 proceeded to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all the probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrived at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed against all the respondents. The High Court was clearly in error in assessing the material before it and concluding that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. We find there are specific allegations in the complaint disclosing the ingredients of the offence taken cognizance of. It is for the complainant to substantiate the allegations by evidence at a later stage. In the absence of circumstances to hold prima facie that the complaint is frivolous when the complaint does disclose the commission of an offence there is no justification for the High Court to interfere.” (emphasis supplied)
10. 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 3 4 5