State of U.P v. Madan and others, under Sections

2. Heard Sri Dhiraj Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vikas Chauhan, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the name of the husband of opposite party no. 2 has wrongly been mentioned in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he may be granted permission to correct the same during the course of the day. He is permitted to correct the same during the course of the day.

5. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Madan, Reena and Devendra with the prayer to quash the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 250 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 109 of 2018, State of U.P. vs. Madan and others, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Titaro, District Saharanpur as well as Charge sheet dated 27.02.2019.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed before the Court annexure-7 to the affidavit being order dated 30.11.2022 passed in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 26721 of 2022 by which another Bench of this Court on the basis of compromise entered into between the applicant no. 1 therein and the opposite party no. 2 being the husband and wife has quashed the proceedings of the said case. It is submitted that the applicants are co-accused of Sumit and others whose petition has been allowed vide order dated 30.11.2022 which is annexed as Annexure-7 to this petition. It is submitted that in the present application, the applicant no. 1 Madan is the Chacha of Sumit, the husband of opposite party no. 2, the applicant no. 2 Reena is the Nanad of opposite party no. 2 and applicant no. 3 Devendra is brother-in-law being the husband of applicant no. 2 Reena. It is submitted that since the dispute being matrimonial in nature has been settled between the husband and wife, the present applicants being the family members of the husband of opposite party no. 2 have been implicated in the matter with general and omnibus allegations. Learned counsel for the applicants has further relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar@Sonam and others Vs State of Bihar and others : (2022) 6 SCC 599 and Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab & Another: Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13579 of 2023).

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the factum of compromise entered into between the husband and wife and further the relationship of the applicants with the opposite party no. 2 and her husband.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab & Another (supra) decided on 26.11.2024, in paragraph nos. 9, 10 & 11 has held as under:- "9. In the decision in Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., this Court observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that in matrimonial disputes exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of sufferings of ignominy, it was further held therein. We have no hesitation to hold that the said observation of this Court is in fact, sounding of a caution,against non-discharge of the duty to see whether implication of a person who is not a close relative of the family of the husband is over implication or whether allegation against any such person is an exaggerated version, in matrimonial disputes of this nature.In this context, it is to be noted that the term 'relative' has not been defined in the statute and, therefore, it must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Hence, normally,it can be taken to include, father, mother, husband or wife,son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew, niece, grandson or granddaughter of any individual or the spouse of any person. To put it shortly, it includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. In paragraph 35 of Preeti Gupta's case (supra) it was furthermore held thus:- "...The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection."

10. In such circumstances, normally against a person who is not falling under any of the aforesaid categories when allegations are raised, in the light of the observations made in Preeti Gupta's case (supra), the Court concerned owes an irrecusable duty to see whether such implication is over implication and / or whetherthe allegations against such a person is an exaggerated version. We have already taken note of the fact that except the observation made in paragraph 7 there is no consideration at all of the contentions of accused No.5 in the impugned order.

11. In the decision in Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr., this Court held that mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the tendency of over implication viz., to draw the entire members of the household in the domestic quarrel resulting in matrimonial dispute, especially when it happens soon after the wedding. In the decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar & Ors., this Court quashed proceedings in so far as family members of the husband on the ground that the allegations against them are general and ominous in nature. In matters like the one at hand when relatives not residing in the same house where the alleged victim resides,the courts shall not stop consideration by merely looking into the question where the accused is a person falling within the ambit of the expression 'relative' for the purpose of Section 498-A, IPC, but should also consider whether it is a case of over implication or exaggerated version solely to implicate such person(s) to pressurise the main accused. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,wherein after considering the statutory provisions and the earlier decisions, this Court referred to various categories of cases where the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. could be exercised by High Court to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. One among such categories is where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent man could ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused."

9. Looking to the facts of the case and the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Payal Sharma (supra) the petition in so far as the applicants Madan, Reena and Devendra are concerned, stands allowed.

10. The proceedings against the applicants are quashed.

11. The entire proceeding as well as charge sheet dated 27.02.2019 of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed subject to the applicants depositing Rs.25,000/- before the concerned trial court which shall be utilized by the District Legal Services Authority of the district. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Manoj (Samit Gopal,J.) MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Dhiraj Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vikas Chauhan, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records.

3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the name of the husband of opposite party no. 2 has wrongly been mentioned in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he may be granted permission to correct the same during the course of the day. He is permitted to correct the same during the course of the day.

5. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Madan, Reena and Devendra with the prayer to quash the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 250 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 109 of 2018, State of U.P. vs. Madan and others, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Titaro, District Saharanpur as well as Charge sheet dated 27.02.2019.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed before the Court annexure-7 to the affidavit being order dated 30.11.2022 passed in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 26721 of 2022 by which another Bench of this Court on the basis of compromise entered into between the applicant no. 1 therein and the opposite party no. 2 being the husband and wife has quashed the proceedings of the said case. It is submitted that the applicants are co-accused of Sumit and others whose petition has been allowed vide order dated 30.11.2022 which is annexed as Annexure-7 to this petition. It is submitted that in the present application, the applicant no. 1 Madan is the Chacha of Sumit, the husband of opposite party no. 2, the applicant no. 2 Reena is the Nanad of opposite party no. 2 and applicant no. 3 Devendra is brother-in-law being the husband of applicant no. 2 Reena. It is submitted that since the dispute being matrimonial in nature has been settled between the husband and wife, the present applicants being the family members of the husband of opposite party no. 2 have been implicated in the matter with general and omnibus allegations. Learned counsel for the applicants has further relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar@Sonam and others Vs State of Bihar and others : (2022) 6 SCC 599 and Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab & Another: Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13579 of 2023).

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the factum of compromise entered into between the husband and wife and further the relationship of the applicants with the opposite party no. 2 and her husband.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab & Another (supra) decided on 26.11.2024, in paragraph nos. 9, 10 & 11 has held as under:- "9. In the decision in Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., this Court observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that in matrimonial disputes exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of sufferings of ignominy, it was further held therein. We have no hesitation to hold that the said observation of this Court is in fact, sounding of a caution,against non-discharge of the duty to see whether implication of a person who is not a close relative of the family of the husband is over implication or whether allegation against any such person is an exaggerated version, in matrimonial disputes of this nature.In this context, it is to be noted that the term 'relative' has not been defined in the statute and, therefore, it must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Hence, normally,it can be taken to include, father, mother, husband or wife,son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew, niece, grandson or granddaughter of any individual or the spouse of any person. To put it shortly, it includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. In paragraph 35 of Preeti Gupta's case (supra) it was furthermore held thus:- "...The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection."

10. In such circumstances, normally against a person who is not falling under any of the aforesaid categories when allegations are raised, in the light of the observations made in Preeti Gupta's case (supra), the Court concerned owes an irrecusable duty to see whether such implication is over implication and / or whetherthe allegations against such a person is an exaggerated version. We have already taken note of the fact that except the observation made in paragraph 7 there is no consideration at all of the contentions of accused No.5 in the impugned order.

11. In the decision in Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr., this Court held that mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the tendency of over implication viz., to draw the entire members of the household in the domestic quarrel resulting in matrimonial dispute, especially when it happens soon after the wedding. In the decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar & Ors., this Court quashed proceedings in so far as family members of the husband on the ground that the allegations against them are general and ominous in nature. In matters like the one at hand when relatives not residing in the same house where the alleged victim resides,the courts shall not stop consideration by merely looking into the question where the accused is a person falling within the ambit of the expression 'relative' for the purpose of Section 498-A, IPC, but should also consider whether it is a case of over implication or exaggerated version solely to implicate such person(s) to pressurise the main accused. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,wherein after considering the statutory provisions and the earlier decisions, this Court referred to various categories of cases where the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. could be exercised by High Court to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. One among such categories is where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent man could ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused."

9. Looking to the facts of the case and the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Payal Sharma (supra) the petition in so far as the applicants Madan, Reena and Devendra are concerned, stands allowed.

10. The proceedings against the applicants are quashed.

11. The entire proceeding as well as charge sheet dated 27.02.2019 of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed subject to the applicants depositing Rs.25,000/- before the concerned trial court which shall be utilized by the District Legal Services Authority of the district. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Manoj (Samit Gopal,J.) MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad