High Court
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. The present application has been filed to quash the cognizance/summoning order dated 21.08.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.9243 of 2019 (State Vs. Mohd. Tarique Siddique and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.180 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Azamgarh, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh. Brief facts of the case are that the present FIR has been lodged on 01.06.2019 at about 16:37 hrs by the opposite party no.2 against five named accused including the applicant under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act with the allegations that the marriage of sister of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with applicant no.1 on 31.03.2018 according to Muslim Rites and Rituals. In the marriage, Mahar of Rs.20,000/- was given and other gift items were also given as per capacity of opposite party no.2. However, sister of opposite party no.2 was mentally and physically tortured raising additional dowry demand. When the sister of opposite party no.2 shared the aforesaid fact with her family members, they tried to convince them, however, there was no change in their behaviour. When she was on family way (pregnant), the applicant sent her to parents' place after which she was sent back with gifts and other things, but they raised additional dowry demand of car. On 25.05.2019 about 10:00 a.m., the sister of opposite party no.2 was badly beaten by the applicant by hand and fists, due to which she sustained injuries on her right ear and became unconscious. After receiving information about the same, the opposite party no.2 reached there and brought her in that condition after which she was treated and the present FIR has been lodged. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted on 08.07.2019, pursuant to which the applicant has been summoned on 21.08.2019. Hence the present petition has been filed. 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. Emphasizing upon the injury report, which is on 28.05.2019, he submits that the report is of 28.05.2019 at about 12:00 p.m., whereas incident is of 12.05.2019 wherein the applicant is said to have assaulted the sister of opposite party no.2. The injury report shows that duration is about one day old, therefore, the aforesaid incident has been denied by the counsel for the applicant. He further submits that the charge sheet is of the year 2019 whereas the applicant was summoned on 21.08.2019 and did not appear in any court of law. 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 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 there are specific allegations against the husband, therefore charge sheet has been submitted under the relevant sections after taking into account all the facts of the present case. As regards the contention raised by counsel for the applicant regarding injury report, he submits that no definite opinion has been given by the doctor regarding duration of injury as it is said about one day old. Injury no.4 was kept under observation, which has been referred to ENT Surgeon, the same is corroborated from the version of the FIR as it has been specifically stated that being assaulted on 25.05.2019, she sustained injuries on right ear, therefore, the incident cannot be denied. He further submits that there is nothing on record to show that the applicant is not avoiding facing trial. 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 (viii) 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 summoning order dated 21.08.2019 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. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Jitendra/-
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. The present application has been filed to quash the cognizance/summoning order dated 21.08.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.9243 of 2019 (State Vs. Mohd. Tarique Siddique and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.180 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Azamgarh, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh. Brief facts of the case are that the present FIR has been lodged on 01.06.2019 at about 16:37 hrs by the opposite party no.2 against five named accused including the applicant under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act with the allegations that the marriage of sister of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with applicant no.1 on 31.03.2018 according to Muslim Rites and Rituals. In the marriage, Mahar of Rs.20,000/- was given and other gift items were also given as per capacity of opposite party no.2. However, sister of opposite party no.2 was mentally and physically tortured raising additional dowry demand. When the sister of opposite party no.2 shared the aforesaid fact with her family members, they tried to convince them, however, there was no change in their behaviour. When she was on family way (pregnant), the applicant sent her to parents' place after which she was sent back with gifts and other things, but they raised additional dowry demand of car. On 25.05.2019 about 10:00 a.m., the sister of opposite party no.2 was badly beaten by the applicant by hand and fists, due to which she sustained injuries on her right ear and became unconscious. After receiving information about the same, the opposite party no.2 reached there and brought her in that condition after which she was treated and the present FIR has been lodged. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted on 08.07.2019, pursuant to which the applicant has been summoned on 21.08.2019. Hence the present petition has been filed. 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. Emphasizing upon the injury report, which is on 28.05.2019, he submits that the report is of 28.05.2019 at about 12:00 p.m., whereas incident is of 12.05.2019 wherein the applicant is said to have assaulted the sister of opposite party no.2. The injury report shows that duration is about one day old, therefore, the aforesaid incident has been denied by the counsel for the applicant. He further submits that the charge sheet is of the year 2019 whereas the applicant was summoned on 21.08.2019 and did not appear in any court of law. 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 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 there are specific allegations against the husband, therefore charge sheet has been submitted under the relevant sections after taking into account all the facts of the present case. As regards the contention raised by counsel for the applicant regarding injury report, he submits that no definite opinion has been given by the doctor regarding duration of injury as it is said about one day old. Injury no.4 was kept under observation, which has been referred to ENT Surgeon, the same is corroborated from the version of the FIR as it has been specifically stated that being assaulted on 25.05.2019, she sustained injuries on right ear, therefore, the incident cannot be denied. He further submits that there is nothing on record to show that the applicant is not avoiding facing trial. 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 (viii) 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 summoning order dated 21.08.2019 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. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Jitendra/-