High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Monu Upadhyay, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Girish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no marriage was performed between the applicant no. 1 and daughter of O.P. No. 2, therefore, no offence under Section 498-A IPC was made out and the Investigating Officer has submitted a charge sheet without conducting proper investigation. Challenging the chargesheet, Application U/s 482 No. 6715 of 2019 was filed, in which on 28.02.2019 following order was passed: "Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record. By means of the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have made a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 12.07.2018 in Case No. 8907/2018 arising out of case crime no. 1389 of 2017, u/s 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, 1961, P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad. Submission made by the counsel for the applicants that taking the averments of the allegation from the FIR to be true on the face value. There was no marriage between Naresh and the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 and therefore the basic ingredients of Section 498A is missing from the allegation but the I.O. of the case in a perfunctory way, investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet against applicants. I have gone through the allegation in the FIR and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants prima facie appears to be correct. Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2. Let a counter afÏdavit be filed within a period of six weeks. Rejoinder afÏdavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List thereafter. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Case No. 8907/2018 arising out of case crime no. 1389 of 2017, u/s 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, 1961, P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad with the condition as law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and other Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation decided on 28.03.2018, which reads as under :- "Situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy was required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings were held up. At times, proceedings were adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even after stay was vacated, intimation was not received and proceedings were not taken up. It was directed that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of civil or criminal trial was operating, the same would come to end on expiry of six months from today unless in exceptional case by speaking order such stay was extended. In cases where stay was granted in future, same would end on expiry of six months from date of such order unless similar extension was granted by speaking order." It is made clear that in the event if the pleadings are not exchanged or any non-cooperation by contesting parties in filing their counter version it would be open for the court to pass any suitable order at the end of above mentioned upper limit of six months."

3. During pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, a discharge application was moved by the applicants which has been rejected in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind vide order dated 06.04.2024, against which revision has also been dismissed on 16.08.2024.

4. The aforesaid petition being Application U/s 482 No. 31549 of 2024 has been filed challenging orders dated 06.04.2024, 16.08.2024 as well as the entire proceedings on the ground that the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are missing as no marriage between applicant no. 1 - Naresh Kumar and daughter of O.P. No. 2 was performed. The aforesaid orders impugned have been passed without considering the aforesaid fact hence the same are liable to be set aside.

5. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that there is no illegality and infirmity in the orders dated 06.04.2024 and 16.08.2024 as after detailed discussion, the applicants have been discharged for the offence under Section 498A IPC which was the main ground on which the interim order was granted to the applicants in Application U/s 482 No. 6715 of 2019. The order affirming order dated 06.04.2024 has been passed on 16.08.2024 and there is nothing on record to show whether the incident has been committed or not. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law, the court cannot go into details to conduct trial in the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. It is a settled proposition of law that all the grounds as taken in the discharge application can be examined at any/appropriate stage of trial and this Court while exercising inherent powers cannot go to conduct mini trial.

7. Considering the settled law on the issue, this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P. and another, 2024:AHC:152701, decided on 18.09.2024, and in the case of Vaibhav Jain v. State of U.P. and another, Application U/s 482 No. 35886 of 2024, 2024:AHC:199278, decided on 19.12.2024, has held that while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or while wielding the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the quashing of the complaint or charge sheet can be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis.

8. The Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 has made the position of law in this regard clear recognizing certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet.

9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants this Court finds that the present matter does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Supreme Court which may justify interference by this Court in order to quash them, and it call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case.

10. Hence, the present applications are rejected. Interim protection granted in favour of the applicants stands discharged. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 DS DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Monu Upadhyay, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Girish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that no marriage was performed between the applicant no. 1 and daughter of O.P. No. 2, therefore, no offence under Section 498-A IPC was made out and the Investigating Officer has submitted a charge sheet without conducting proper investigation. Challenging the chargesheet, Application U/s 482 No. 6715 of 2019 was filed, in which on 28.02.2019 following order was passed: "Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record. By means of the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have made a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 12.07.2018 in Case No. 8907/2018 arising out of case crime no. 1389 of 2017, u/s 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, 1961, P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad. Submission made by the counsel for the applicants that taking the averments of the allegation from the FIR to be true on the face value. There was no marriage between Naresh and the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 and therefore the basic ingredients of Section 498A is missing from the allegation but the I.O. of the case in a perfunctory way, investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet against applicants. I have gone through the allegation in the FIR and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants prima facie appears to be correct. Issue notice to the opposite party no. 2. Let a counter afÏdavit be filed within a period of six weeks. Rejoinder afÏdavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List thereafter. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Case No. 8907/2018 arising out of case crime no. 1389 of 2017, u/s 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, 1961, P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad with the condition as law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and other Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation decided on 28.03.2018, which reads as under :- "Situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy was required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings were held up. At times, proceedings were adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even after stay was vacated, intimation was not received and proceedings were not taken up. It was directed that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of civil or criminal trial was operating, the same would come to end on expiry of six months from today unless in exceptional case by speaking order such stay was extended. In cases where stay was granted in future, same would end on expiry of six months from date of such order unless similar extension was granted by speaking order." It is made clear that in the event if the pleadings are not exchanged or any non-cooperation by contesting parties in filing their counter version it would be open for the court to pass any suitable order at the end of above mentioned upper limit of six months."

3. During pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, a discharge application was moved by the applicants which has been rejected in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind vide order dated 06.04.2024, against which revision has also been dismissed on 16.08.2024.

4. The aforesaid petition being Application U/s 482 No. 31549 of 2024 has been filed challenging orders dated 06.04.2024, 16.08.2024 as well as the entire proceedings on the ground that the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are missing as no marriage between applicant no. 1 - Naresh Kumar and daughter of O.P. No. 2 was performed. The aforesaid orders impugned have been passed without considering the aforesaid fact hence the same are liable to be set aside.

5. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that there is no illegality and infirmity in the orders dated 06.04.2024 and 16.08.2024 as after detailed discussion, the applicants have been discharged for the offence under Section 498A IPC which was the main ground on which the interim order was granted to the applicants in Application U/s 482 No. 6715 of 2019. The order affirming order dated 06.04.2024 has been passed on 16.08.2024 and there is nothing on record to show whether the incident has been committed or not. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law, the court cannot go into details to conduct trial in the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. It is a settled proposition of law that all the grounds as taken in the discharge application can be examined at any/appropriate stage of trial and this Court while exercising inherent powers cannot go to conduct mini trial.

7. Considering the settled law on the issue, this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P. and another, 2024:AHC:152701, decided on 18.09.2024, and in the case of Vaibhav Jain v. State of U.P. and another, Application U/s 482 No. 35886 of 2024, 2024:AHC:199278, decided on 19.12.2024, has held that while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or while wielding the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the quashing of the complaint or charge sheet can be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis.

8. The Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 has made the position of law in this regard clear recognizing certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet.

9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants this Court finds that the present matter does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Supreme Court which may justify interference by this Court in order to quash them, and it call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case.

10. Hence, the present applications are rejected. Interim protection granted in favour of the applicants stands discharged. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 DS DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad