In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the

01.10.2015, applicants. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief for the State. 3. Mr. Arjun Arora, proxy counsel for Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has 4. been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned chargesheet summoning/ cognizance order dated 30.01.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 565 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 504 & 323 I.P.C. as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case. 5. Brief facts of the case as per record are that the dispute arises out of matrimonial discord as applicant no.1 is father-in-law, applicant no.2 mother-in-law and applicant no.3 is husband of respondent no.2. The marriage between applicant no.3 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 02.12.2003 in accordance with Hindu rites, and two sons were born from the said wedlock. On 18.06.2015, respondent no.2 along with her two sons allegedly left the matrimonial home without family members. Consequently, informing report and lodged a missing applicant no.1 subsequently, the father of respondent no.2 filed Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 11 of 2015 before this Court, wherein respondent no.2 appeared before the Court on 23.07.2015 and categorically stated that she had voluntarily left her matrimonial home and was residing with her father of her own free will and the said petition was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court with liberty to the father of respondent no.2 to approach the police for assistance. 6. On 01.07.2015, respondent no.2 appeared before the S.S.P., Rudrapur, where her custody was handed over to her brother. Thereafter, applicant no.3 filed Suit No. 47 of 2015 before the Family Court, District Udham Singh Nagar under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, wherein custody of the children were given to him. Subsequently, respondent no.2 lodged an FIR under Sections 323, 341, 498-A, and 504 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, wherein the Investigating Officer after completion of the investigation has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicants on 01.10.2015 under Sections 498-A, 504, 323, pursuant to which the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the applicants vide order dated 30.01.2016. It is submitted that earlier the applicants had preferred Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 904 of 2015 before this Court for quashing of interim protection was granted on 29.07.2015. Learned counsel for the applicants would 7. submit that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated as during 12 years of matrimonial life, respondent no.2 never made any allegation of dowry demand or harassment. It is further submitted that even in a civil suit for permanent injunction filed in 2004 by applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 against her own parents, a decree was passed in their favour on 30.09.2005. Respondent no.2 had also published a notice in the newspaper in 2008 severing ties with her parents. Learned counsel for the applicants would 8. further submit that respondent no.2 filed a complaint case in 2006 against her parents and brother, which was later compromised; that, an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was also filed by respondent no.2 but the same was dismissed in default on 04.10.2018. During its pendency, the the said FIR, in which custody of the children was given to applicant no.3. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 would submit that during the investigation of the missing report, respondent no.2 made statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. alleging mental and physical cruelty and dowry demand. Based on her statements, the FIR was registered, and charge- sheet was submitted thereafter. It is argued that she may have endured harassment for years, and left the she got an matrimonial home only when opportunity. 10. To this, learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the charge-sheet has not been filed under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act or Section 341 I.P.C., and contends that the allegations are baseless. It is urged that respondent no.2, being a highly educated woman holding M.Sc. and LL.B. degrees, cannot be presumed to have suffered cruelty silently for over 12 years, especially when no complaints were ever made during that period. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. It is an admitted fact the applicant no.3 and respondent no.2 are legally wedded and respondent no.2 left her matrimonial home after 12 years of marriage and that two sons were born out of the wedlock. During this long period, no complaints of cruelty or dowry harassment were made by respondent no.2. On the contrary, suits and complaints filed earlier indicate discord between respondent no.2 and her own family members, including a civil suit filed jointly with her father-in- law i.e. applicant no.1 against her parents. 13. It is also important to note that the application filed by respondent no.2 under the Domestic Violence Act was dismissed for non-prosecution, and custody of the children was granted to applicant no.3. These circumstances suggest that the present criminal proceedings is nothing but to exert undue pressure upon the applicant rather than genuine allegations. 14. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an FIR or charge-sheet can be quashed investigation is unfair, biased, or intended to harass—especially when no clear evidence supports the allegations, and relatives are falsely implicated. 15. In the present case, the allegations made in the complaint appear to be vague and bereft of any specific instances of cruelty or demand of dowry. It prima facie appears to be a case of over-implication, wherein the entire family of the husband has been roped in without any cogent material or substantive evidence on record. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the 16. considered opinion the criminal that allowing proceedings to continue against the applicants would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, this is a fit case wherein the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserve to be exercised to secure the ends of justice. 17. Accordingly, 01.10.2015 and the summoning/cognizance order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 565 of 2016 under Sections 498-A, 504, and 323 I.P.C. are hereby quashed. The entire proceedings of the said case against the applicants are hereby quashed. 18. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed. 19. Pending applications, disposed of accordingly. if any, also stand charge-sheet Mamta (Alok Mahra, J.) 01.07.2025