High Court

Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Seth @ Prince Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 29.03.2023 along with Cognizance order dated 12.08.2024 and the entire proceeding of Case No.905 of 2024 (State vs. Praveen Kumar Seth alias Prince), arising out of Case Crime No.14 of 2023, under Sections 493, 496 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station- Chandwak, District- Jaunpur as well as stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Court No.17, Jaunpur.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged on 18.01.2023 at 13:09 hours against the applicant under Sections 493, 496, 376 I.P.C. with the allegations that opposite party no.2 whose date of birth is 10.08.2002 became friendly with the applicant who owns a jewellery shop as she used to visit his jewellery shop for the purpose of purchasing jewellery. In November, 2021, the applicant proposed the opposite party no.2 for marriage and in January, 2022, he took her to Sheetla Mata Mandir, Varanasi where they performed marriage. The applicant had put sindoor at the temple indicating that he had married the opposite party no.2. After the aforesaid marriage at temple, the opposite party no.2 started staying with the applicant as his wife and they established physical relationship as husband and wife. They continued in this relationship and opposite party no.2 requested the applicant to perform court marriage and also requested him to take her along with him to his parents place. It has been further alleged that the applicant in this manner has given an impression of marrying the opposite party no.2 but is not accepting the marriage in society and has sexually exploited her in this manner. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and he has been summoned vide order dated 12.08.2024, hence the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the version of the FIR as well as statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it is clear that the allegations as made against the applicant are false and the relationship between the applicant and opposite party no.2 were consensual. He further submits that there was some purchase as made by mother of opposite party no.2 and dispute arose as money was not being given by her to the applicant, therefore, an FIR was lodged through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 29.03.2023 against the opposite party no.2, her mother as well as few unknown persons. The present FIR is a counter blast to the aforesaid case as lodged by the applicant.

5. Relying upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sonu Alias Subhash Kumar v. State of U.P. And Another, reported in (2021) 18 SCC 517, he submits that as the relation between the applicant and opposite party no.2 was consensual in nature, offence under the relevant section is not made out. He further submits that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide 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.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State on the other hand submits that from the version of the FIR and the statements, the offence under the relevant sections is made out. It would be relevant to reproduce Sections 493 and 496 I.P.C., which are here in below :- "493. Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage.—Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine" "496. Marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage. —Whoever, dishonestly or with a fraudulent intention, goes through the ceremony of being married, knowing that he is not thereby lawfully married, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

7. Thus, the applicant giving an impression that he has married opposite party no.2 at the temple, has sexually exploited her, therefore, offence under the relevant section is made out. As regards the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant regarding an FIR being lodged through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no.2, the present FIR is prior to the case as lodged by the applicant against the opposite party no.2, therefore, the submission as made by learned counsel for the applicant has no legs to stand. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relates to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019.

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

9. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicant's 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 to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant 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, 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 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 applicant 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 29.03.2023 and Cognizance order dated 12.08.2024 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.

12. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Kalp Nath Singh

Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Seth @ Prince Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 29.03.2023 along with Cognizance order dated 12.08.2024 and the entire proceeding of Case No.905 of 2024 (State vs. Praveen Kumar Seth alias Prince), arising out of Case Crime No.14 of 2023, under Sections 493, 496 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station- Chandwak, District- Jaunpur as well as stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Court No.17, Jaunpur.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged on 18.01.2023 at 13:09 hours against the applicant under Sections 493, 496, 376 I.P.C. with the allegations that opposite party no.2 whose date of birth is 10.08.2002 became friendly with the applicant who owns a jewellery shop as she used to visit his jewellery shop for the purpose of purchasing jewellery. In November, 2021, the applicant proposed the opposite party no.2 for marriage and in January, 2022, he took her to Sheetla Mata Mandir, Varanasi where they performed marriage. The applicant had put sindoor at the temple indicating that he had married the opposite party no.2. After the aforesaid marriage at temple, the opposite party no.2 started staying with the applicant as his wife and they established physical relationship as husband and wife. They continued in this relationship and opposite party no.2 requested the applicant to perform court marriage and also requested him to take her along with him to his parents place. It has been further alleged that the applicant in this manner has given an impression of marrying the opposite party no.2 but is not accepting the marriage in society and has sexually exploited her in this manner. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and he has been summoned vide order dated 12.08.2024, hence the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the version of the FIR as well as statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it is clear that the allegations as made against the applicant are false and the relationship between the applicant and opposite party no.2 were consensual. He further submits that there was some purchase as made by mother of opposite party no.2 and dispute arose as money was not being given by her to the applicant, therefore, an FIR was lodged through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 29.03.2023 against the opposite party no.2, her mother as well as few unknown persons. The present FIR is a counter blast to the aforesaid case as lodged by the applicant.

5. Relying upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sonu Alias Subhash Kumar v. State of U.P. And Another, reported in (2021) 18 SCC 517, he submits that as the relation between the applicant and opposite party no.2 was consensual in nature, offence under the relevant section is not made out. He further submits that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide 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.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State on the other hand submits that from the version of the FIR and the statements, the offence under the relevant sections is made out. It would be relevant to reproduce Sections 493 and 496 I.P.C., which are here in below :- "493. Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage.—Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine" "496. Marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage. —Whoever, dishonestly or with a fraudulent intention, goes through the ceremony of being married, knowing that he is not thereby lawfully married, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

7. Thus, the applicant giving an impression that he has married opposite party no.2 at the temple, has sexually exploited her, therefore, offence under the relevant section is made out. As regards the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant regarding an FIR being lodged through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no.2, the present FIR is prior to the case as lodged by the applicant against the opposite party no.2, therefore, the submission as made by learned counsel for the applicant has no legs to stand. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relates to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019.

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

9. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicant's 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 to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant 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, 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 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 applicant 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 29.03.2023 and Cognizance order dated 12.08.2024 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.

12. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Kalp Nath Singh