High Court
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
Heard Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 04.04.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 16.07.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.305 of 2024 (State Vs. Vijay Kumar and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.316 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Lodha, District-Aligarh, pending in the Court of District and Session Judge, Aligarh. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present FIR has been lodged against the husband as well as his entire family members with omnibus, general, vague and bald allegations regarding harassment of the victim for non-fulfillment of additional dowry demand. He further submits that the applicant is husband of opposite party no.2. No offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 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. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that the FIR has been lodged on 26.12.2023 and after investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted on 04.04.2024. The applicant is husband of opposite party no.2 and there is specific allegation against the applicant regarding mentally and physically harassment the victim. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate 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. 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 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 (ix) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143. 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. The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the Court's process either. However, it is provided that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the applicant may appear before the court below and apply for bail within one month from today. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application of the applicant expeditiously in view of the settled law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773. For a period of one month from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, he does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him. With the above observations, this application stands disposed off. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Jitendra/-
Heard Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 04.04.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 16.07.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.305 of 2024 (State Vs. Vijay Kumar and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.316 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Lodha, District-Aligarh, pending in the Court of District and Session Judge, Aligarh. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present FIR has been lodged against the husband as well as his entire family members with omnibus, general, vague and bald allegations regarding harassment of the victim for non-fulfillment of additional dowry demand. He further submits that the applicant is husband of opposite party no.2. No offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 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. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that the FIR has been lodged on 26.12.2023 and after investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted on 04.04.2024. The applicant is husband of opposite party no.2 and there is specific allegation against the applicant regarding mentally and physically harassment the victim. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate 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. 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 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 (ix) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143. 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. The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the Court's process either. However, it is provided that if the bail has not been obtained as yet, the applicant may appear before the court below and apply for bail within one month from today. The court below shall make an endeavour to decide the bail application of the applicant expeditiously in view of the settled law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773. For a period of one month from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, he does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him. With the above observations, this application stands disposed off. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Jitendra/-