H I GH COU RT OF UTTA RA N CH A L v. St at e of Ut t aranchal
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
The pet it ion under sect ion 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing t he chargesheet subm it t ed by t he I .O. in case cr im e No.606/ 2005 and order dat ed 24.10.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magist rat e, Haridwar in cr im inal case No.5666/ 2005 St at e Vs. Him anshu Chaw la & ot hers under sect ions 498- A I PC and 3/ 4 Dowry Prohibit ion Act . 2 . Brief fact s of t he case are t hat t he respondent No.3 lodged an FI R alleging t herein t hat t he m arr iage was solem nized bet ween t he applicant No.4- Him anshu and respondent No. 3- Neeru on 17. 04.2001 according t o Hindu r it es and cust om s. Out of t heir wedlock , one child was born. I t was furt her alleged t hat t he respondent No.3 was subj ect ed t o ill- t reat m ent and harassm ent by t he applicant s in connect ion w it h dowry dem ands. Thereaft er, t he respondent No. 3 left her m at r im onial house and lodged an FI R. The 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 v ide order dat ed 24.10.2005. Feeling aggr ieved by t his, t he applicant s preferred t he present pet it ion.
Learned counsel for t he applicant s cont ended t hat t he learned Magist rat e has passed t he cognizance order w it hout apply ing t he j udicial m ind and as such t he order passed by t he m agist rat e is ar bit rary and m echanical. I t was furt her cont ended t hat t he respondent No.3 left her m at r im onial house in t he m ont h of March 2003 and t he FI R was lodged in t he m ont h of August 2003. I t was furt her cont ended t hat t he FI R was lodged aft er due consult at ion and it is an aft ert hought . Learned counsel for t he respondent No.3 appeared before t his court and filed count er affidav it . I have gone t hrough t he ent ire record. The chargesheet and t he FI R clear ly disclose t he offence. The st at em ent recor ded under sect ion 161 Cr.P.C. has not been t his pet it ion. The respondent No.3 has filed t he affidav it in which she has st at ed t hat t he allegat ions had been proved against t he applicant s- accused.
Perusal of t he record reveals t hat t he learned Magist rat e has applied his j udicial m ind and t he order is not m echanical. So far as t he cont ent ion t hat t he FI R was lodged aft er due consult at ion concerned, it is a subj ect m at t er of ev idence. This plea can be raised by t he applicant s dur ing t r ial. The t r ial court can only evaluat e t he ev idence 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 version of t he respondent No.3 is correct . I t is 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 ev idence 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 be exercised very spar ingly and w it h circum 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 bark ing upon an enquir y as t o t he reliabilit y or genuineness or ot herw ise of t he allegat ions m ade t he FI R or t he com plaint and t hat t he ext raordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbit rar y 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 V s. M . D e v e n 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 w ould not ordinar ily em bark upon an enquir y whet her t he ev idence 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 .
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. V s. 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 } .
I n v iew of t he above, t he pet it ion lack s m erit 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 22.05.2006 LSR
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 22 May 2006. The bench was C S WAT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.