Sanjeev Kumar & others v. Presence

Judgment

1. The present criminal miscellaneousapplication under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved by the Applicants: Sanjeev Kumar and others, seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4036 of 2019 (State vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others), pending before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur,

District Udham Singh Nagar. The case arises from FIR No. 0641 of 2018 lodged at Police Station Kashipur under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Applicant No. 1 is the husband of respondent No. 2, whereas applicants Nos. 2 and 4 are her brothers-in-law (jeth), and applicants Nos. 3 and 5 are her sisters-in-law (jethani). It is stated that applicants Nos. 2 and 3 reside in Chandigarh, and are in government and private service, respectively. Applicants Nos. 4 and 5 reside in Bareilly and are also Criminal Misc. Application No. 1668 of 2021, Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 1 (Ashish Naithani J.) gainfully employed or engaged in household duties. Applicant No. 1 is said to be residing separately. All applicants claim to be law-abiding citizens with no prior criminal antecedents.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Applicant that the marriage between Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 05.12.2014 according to Hindu rites and customs at Gurudwara Model Town, Bareilly. The relationship between the couple, however, deteriorated over time. On 28.07.2018, applicant No. 1 instituted a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, pending before the Family Court, Bareilly.

4. The learned counsel for the Applicants contends that the FIR in question has been lodged as a counterblast to the said matrimonial proceedings. The impugned FIR was registered on 04.11.2018, several months after the spouses began living separately. It is alleged that the allegations therein are general in nature and do not disclose specific acts of cruelty or dowry demand against any individual applicant.

5. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 2 left her matrimonial home in March 2018, taking all articles of Stridhanand certain household goods, which she later sold. The same is reflected in the statements of independent witnesses, including neighbours, who were examined during the investigation and have categorically denied any harassment or cruelty.

6. The learned counsel for the Applicants contendedthat none of the statements, read either in isolation or collectively, disclose the Criminal Misc. Application No. 1668 of 2021, Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 2 (Ashish Naithani J.) ingredients of the alleged offences. It is also pointed out that respondent No. 2, in her questionnaire, admitted not having undergone any medical examination, despite alleging physical assault, thereby rendering the charge under Section 323 IPC unsubstantiated.

7. Learned counsel for the Applicants further submits that the summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner, without due application of judicial mind to the facts or evidentiary material on record. It is urged that the materials collected during the investigation are insufficient to prima facie make out the alleged offences, and continuation of the proceedings would result in abuse of the process of law.

8. In support of the prayer, reliance is placed upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, to contend that the instant case falls within the categories recognised therein for quashing of proceedings at the threshold. Emphasis is also laid on the decisions in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741, andK. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452, to contend that in the absence of specific and credible allegations, prosecution of distant relatives or in-laws ought to be interfered with.

9. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the application and submitted that the impugned FIR discloses a prima facie case and contains allegations of physical and mental cruelty, supported by statements of the complainant and her mother. It is urged that the allegations cannot be said to be inherently improbable or absurd at this stage to warrant quashing. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1668 of 2021, Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 3 (Ashish Naithani J.)

10. Learned State Counsel further submits that the statements of the complainant and her mother, recorded under Section 161 CrPC, are consistent with the version disclosed in the FIR and sufficiently indicate that the applicant-husband, along with his family members, subjected the informant to sustained cruelty and harassment for dowry.

11. Learned State Counsel also pointed out that the lack of medical evidence is not fatal in a case involving allegations of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC, particularly where the allegation includes mental and emotional abuse.

12. Lastly, it is contended that the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate reflects due application of mind, and the trial court rightly found a prima facie case to proceed. It is urged that the present application is an attempt to stifle prosecution at the threshold and invite the High Court to conduct a mini-trial under the garb of exercising inherent powers, which is impermissible in law.

13. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties and Perused the records.

14. The foundational question is whether, assuming allegations at face value, the prosecution can proceed in the facts of the case.

15. A bare perusal of the FIR and accompanying materials reveals that the allegations against the applicants are omnibus in nature. No specific date, time, or incident has been attributed to any particular accused. The entire narrative of dowry harassment is couched in general terms and lacks the degree of specificity required to establish prima facie involvement of the co-accused family members. Apart from the applicant- Criminal Misc. Application No. 1668 of 2021, Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 4 (Ashish Naithani J.) husband, there is no particularised imputation against applicants Nos. 2 to 5, who, as per the record, are residing separately either in Chandigarh or in Bareilly, and are not part of the shared household.

16. The Supreme Court in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452, observed that vague allegations and roping in of distant relatives without attributing specific roles constitutes abuse of criminal process. Likewise, in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741, it was held that a general allegation of harassment against in- laws, without supporting material, is insufficient to prosecute them under Section 498-A IPC. In the present case, the materials on record fall short of establishing even a prima facie case against applicants Nos. 2 to 5.

17. Furthermore, the FIR was lodged nearly eight months after the parties began residing separately and more than three months after applicant No. 1 instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Such delay, absent any explanation, casts a shadow of doubt over the bona fides of the prosecution. While delay in itself may not always be fatal, it gains significance where the FIR appears to be a counterblast to a pending matrimonial proceeding.

18. The statement of the complainant, as recorded during the investigation, makes no mention of any medical examination or treatment for injuries, despite allegations of physical assault. There is also no medical report on record. Though the absence of medical evidence is not conclusive in cases of mental cruelty, it assumes relevance in a prosecution under Section 323 IPC. The complainant’s version, coupled with her admitted separation since March 2018 and the sale of household Criminal Misc. Application No. 1668 of 2021, Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 5 (Ashish Naithani J.) articles, undermines the claim of continued matrimonial cohabitation and thus the plausibility of sustained harassment.

19. The statements of independent witnesses, including neighbours, who are unrelated to either party, consistently affirm that respondent No. 2 had moved out of the matrimonial home and was not subjected to cruelty in their presence. These statements support the applicants’ claim of separate residence and absence of direct involvement.

20. It is now well settled that the power under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. However, in a case where the allegations are inherently improbable, unsupported by any material, and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, such power must be invoked. The present case, in my considered view, falls squarely within categories (1) and (7) enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

21. The proceedings, if allowed to continue, would result in needless harassment of the applicants, particularly those who appear to have no proximity to the events alleged. This Court is thus satisfied that intervention under Section 482 CrPC is warranted to secure the ends of justice. ORDER The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4036 of 2019, State vs. Sanjeev Kumar and Others, pending before the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, including the charge Criminal Misc. Application No. 1668 of 2021, Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 6 (Ashish Naithani J.) sheet dated 03.04.2019 and the order of cognizance and summoning dated

07.05.2019, arising out of FIR No. 0641 of 2018, lodged at Police Station Kashipur, are hereby quashed as against all the Applicants. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021 is hereby allowed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:11.06.2025 NR/ NITESH RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d56 3d95c70eb77fa0ea4758e401cf436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897B CDC0B6567DCE4B7108B324FFED3C8A159F 3BDD03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT Criminal Misc. Application No. 1668 of 2021, Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 7 (Ashish Naithani J.)