High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:168550 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34247 of 2024 Applicant :- Sameer And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Zakir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 12.05.2024, cognizance/ summoning order dated 29.07.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 22842 of 2024 (State Vs. Sameer and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 212 of 2024, under Sections 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage), Act, 2019, Police Station Bannadevi, District Aligarh, pending before the learned C.J.M., Aligarh. Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 28.03.2024 at 20.32 hours under Sections 376, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage), Act, 2019 by opposite party no.2 namely, Smt. Shaviya against her husband (Sameer), mother-in-law (Rihana), father-in-law and brother-in-law namely Shahbaj with the allegations that marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with applicant no.1 on 17th October, 2023 according to Muslim Rites and Rituals. The parents of opposite party no.2 gave dowry as well as gifts as per their capacity and capability. Brother-in-law of opposite party no.2, namely, Shahbaj from the very first day of the marriage had bad intention upon her. He used to behave in an inappropriate manner with her. When she made a complain in this regard to her husband Sameer, he convinced her stating that he is his younger brother and she should not mind his behavior. Her mother-in-law Rihana used to occult practices, therefore, many persons used to visit her in-law house. Applicant no.1 did not do any job. He used to come home drunk every evening and beat her. One day when she was cooking, he burnt both her hands with extractor, the marks of which are still on her hands. On the same day, her bother-in-law Shahabaj at about 10 O'clock came into her room and requested her saying that his brother is an alcoholic, he will keep her happy. When opposite party no.2 objected, seeing her alone, he touched her private parts, threw her on the bed and forcefully committed rape upon her. When the opposite party no.2 screamed her mother-in-law, husband and father-in-law reached there. She told them the entire incident, they asked her to shut her mouth otherwise threatened her to dire consequences. The aforesaid incident was shared by opposite party no.2 with her mother on 02.03.2024 through telephonic call, on which her parents reached her in-laws house, where applicant no.1 (husband) misbehaved with them. He gave divorce (Triple Talaq) and pushed her out of the house. Her mother-in-law said that she is a occultist, no body can harm her in any way. She also stated that no matter where the opposite party no.2 complains about the said incident, no body is not in a position to harm her in any manner. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicants as well as brother-in-law of opposite party no.2, hence the present application has been filed challenging the same. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.1 is the husband and applicant no.2 is the mother-in-law of opposite party no.2. The present case has been lodged as a counter blast to the F.I.R. lodged by applicant no.1 on 09.03.2024 against the family members of opposite party no.2, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. The incident as detailed in the F.I.R. as done by the brother-in-law of opposite party no.2 is false. However his case has been separated from the present case as he is juvenile. He also submits that applicant no.1 has not given divorce (Triple Talak) to opposite party no.2. He further submits that the entire allegations made in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of opposite party no.2 regarding the incident is nothing but to wreck vengeance against the applicants for the F.I.R., which has been lodged by applicant no.1 against the family members of opposite party no.2. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He, therefore, submits that the charge-sheet, summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse process of Court. Learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that the present FIR has been lodged by Smt. Shaviya, who is not named accused in the FIR lodged by the applicant no.1. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicants for the commission of the alleged incident. In support of his case, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Dilbag Rai Vs. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 693 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in MANU/SC/1432/2019. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be 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. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:- (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866, (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122, (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682, (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454, (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and laslty (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 12.05.2024 and summoning order dated 29.07.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 22.10.2024 Abhishek Singh Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad