Sanjeev Kumar Tandon & Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors.

D/ o lat e Shri R.K. Tandon R/ o House No.202, Old Awas Vikas Kasba Kashipur Dist r ict U.S. Nagar .. ... Respondent s Sr i Lokendr a Dobhal lear ned counsel for t he applicant s. Sr i Am it Bhat t and Sr i Raj eev Mohan lear ned counsel A.G.A. H o n ’ b l e J. C. S. Ra w a t , J. 1 . The pet it ion under sect ion 482 Cr.P.C. has been for quashing t he chargesheet No. 59/ 2006 and proceedings in cr im inal case No.655/ 2005 St at e Vs. Sm t . Beena Tandon & ot hers under sect ions 498- A, 506 I PC and 3/ 4 Dowry Prohibit ion Act pending in t he court of Judicial Magist rat e, Kashipur, Dist rict U.S. Nagar. 2 . Brief fact s of t he case are t hat t he respondent No.2 filed an applicat ion under sect ion 156( 3) Cr.P.C. in t he court of Judicial Magist rat e, Kashipur for regist rat ion of t he first infor m at ion report against t he applicant No. 1 and his fam ily m em bers alleging t herein t hat t he applicant s were dem anding dowry of Rs.2 lakh and a Marut i car. When t he said dem and was not fulfilled, t he applicant s t urned out t he respondent No.2 from t heir house. I t was furt her alleged t hat on 4.1.2006 t he applicant No.1 alongw it h his ot her fam ily m em bers cam e t o t he house of one- Him anshu Bhardwaj for com prom ise and again dem anded t he dowr y from t he respondent No.2. When her brot her shown his inabilit y t o fulfill t he dem and of dowry, t he applicant s t hreat ened and abused t he respondent No.2 and her br ot her. Thereaft er, t he police invest igat ed t he m at t er and subm it t ed t he chargesheet . The learned Magist rat e t ook cognizance against t he applicant s. Feeling aggr ieved by t his, t he applicant s preferred t he present pet it ion. 3 . Learned counsel for t he applicant s cont ended t hat in t he fir st week of January 2006 Sm t . Munni Dev i Tandon- grandm ot her of applicant No.1 was seriously ill and t herefore, t he ent ire fam ily m em bers of applicant No.1 were busy t reat m ent of Sm t . Munni Dev i Tandon, who died on 5.1.2006. I t was cont ended t hat consider ing t he above fact s t he allegat ions m ade in t he FI R w it h regard t o t he dat ed of 4.1.2006 are im probable. Learned counsel for t he applicant s has also filed t he copy of t he m edical prescript ions and t he deat h report of Sm t . Munni Dev i. I t was furt her cont ended t hat t he applicant No.1 got opened t wo bank account s in t he nam e of respondent No.2 in Moradabad Branch. The applicant No.1 used t o deposit t he am ount t he account of respondent No.2, but t he respondent No.2 w it hdrew t he whole am ount from her account and gave it t o her parent s. The applicant No.2 was also present in t he bank and his at t endance slip has also been filed before t he Court . I t was furt her cont ended t hat t he applicant s were not present at t he relevant t im e. I n ot her w ords, t he applicant s have t aken a plea of ‘alibi’. I t was also cont ended t hat t he applicant No.2 was liv ing in a separat e house and as such his presence at t he spot is doubt ful. Learned AGA refut ed t he cont ent ion. The aforesaid pleas are t he subj ect m at t er of ev idence. These pleas can be raised by t he applicant s dur ing t r ial. The t rial court can only evaluat e t he evidence of t he applicant s. Now, it is t o be decided whet her t he version of t he applicant s is correct or t he ver sion of t he privat e respondent is correct . I t is a quest ion of fact , which has t o be decided dur ing t he t r ial. This court cannot evaluat e t he disput ed fact s of t he case. This Court cannot decide as t o whet her t he evidence is reliable or not . I t has been held by t he Hon’ble Apex Court in M . N a r a y a n d a s V s. St a t e o f K a r n a t a k a 2 0 0 4 Cr i .L.J. p / 8 2 2 t hat t he power of quashing a cr im inal proceeding should exercised spar ingly and w it h cir cum spect ion and t hat t oo in t he rarest of rare cases; t hat t he court w ill not be j ust ified in em bar k ing upon an enquiry as t o t he reliabilit y or genuineness or ot herw ise of t he allegat ions m ade in t he FI R or t he com plaint and t hat t he ext raordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbit rary j ur isdict ion on t he Court t o act accor ding t o it s whim or capr ise. I t has also been held in St a t e o f K a r n a t a k a Vs. M . D e v e m d r a p p a & a n o t h e r 2 0 0 2 ( 2 ) SBR p / 1 5 1 t hat while exercising j ur isdict ion under sect ion 482 Cr.P.C., t he High Court would not ordinar ily em bark upon an enquiry whet her t he evidence quest ion is reliable or not or whet her on a reasonable appreciat ion of it accusat ion would not be sust ained. That is funct ion of t he t r ial court . 4 . I t is not per m issible for t he High Court t o look int o m at erials, t he accept abilit y of which is essent ially a m at t er of t r ial. While exercising j ur isdict ion under sect ion 482 Cr.P.C., it is not possible for t his Court t o act as if it is a t r ial court . { St a t e o f M .P. Vs. A w a d h K i sh o r e Gu p t a a n d o t h e r s SCC ( Cr i ) 2 0 0 4 p / 3 5 3 } . 5 . I n v iew of t he above, t he pet it ion lacks m er it and is dism issed. All t he pending m iscellaneous applicat ion( s) in t his case, if any, shall st and disposed of accor dingly . ( J.C. S. Ra w a t , J.) Dat ed 24.05.2006 LSR