High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 83 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18175 of 2021 Applicant :- Vinod Kumar And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chand,Namit Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pulak Ganguly Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No. 1729 of 2021 in Case Crime No. 2 of 2021, under Sections 498- A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mahila Thana, District Hathras as well as cognizance order dated 17.05.2021 and charge sheet dated 04.02.2021. Learned counsel for the applicants submits in following manner :- (i) The applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have committed no offence. The entire prosecution story is false and fake. (ii) Initially, the F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 377, 328 I.P.C. In the F.I.R., date of incident was not mentioned. The complainant's father is retired constable and under his pressure, the F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants. (iii) The complainant / victim is legally wedded wife of applicant no. 1 and due to their valid wedlock three children were born out. Two children are living with the applicant no. 1 and one with opposite party no. 2. (iv) A divorce petition is pending before the competent court in which opposite party no. 2 admitted separate living from applicant no. 1 for the last six years. The allegations levelled against the applicants in the impugned F.I.R. are false, fake and concocted. Entire story set up by prosecution is doubtful. (v) The statements of witnesses do not support the prosecution case and no case under Section 498-A I.P.C. is made out. The opposite party no. 2 lives with her father according to her own will. Learned AGA opposed the application and submitted that in statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is specific allegation of offence under Section 377 but Investigating OfÏcer did not submit charge sheet in the aforesaid section. From the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., case under the alleged section is made out. A look at F.I.R. and allegations made therein, statement of witnesses recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. would show that victim / opposite party no. 2 herein, incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the accused-applicants for the offence alleged. The question whether the victim will be able to prove the allegation in the manner known to law would arise only at a later stage. It cannot be said that prima-facie case is not made out against the applicant.
Legal Reasoning
It is well settled that exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is the exception and not the rule. Under this section, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law, including procedural law and not otherwise. In Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 259, Court has held that it is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. If the factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint, the court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during the investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and others, (2019) 6 SCC 107, Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under : "15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable. 16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence. 17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case." (emphasis added) Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, rival submissions made by learned Counsel for parties, and legal proposition discussed hereinabove, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, I do not see any good ground justifying interference in the matter. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 12.5.2022 Manoj Digitally signed by MANOJ KUMAR YADAV Date: 2022.05.18 11:11:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad