High Court · 2025

of 2024 (State Vs. Zubair and others), arising out of Case Crime No.52 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit, pending in the court of CJM, Pilibhit.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. has been lodged on

14.02.2024 at 15:20 hours under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act against seven named accused persons including the applicants, with the allegations that marriage of daughter of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with applicant no.1 as per Muslim Rites and Rituals in November, 2022. After some time of marriage, in-laws of daughter of opposite party no.2 asked her to bring Rs 5 lakh from her maternal home to open a tailoring shop for her husband. Due to this reason, they used to abuse and beat her for non-fulfillment of additional dowry demand. About 7-8 months ago, the victim was kicked and punched in her stomach while she was pregnant and without getting her treated, she was sent to informant's house. The informant got the victim treated in Rammuti Smarak Hospital, Bhojipura, Bareilly and she is admitted in the hospital till date. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted only against the applicants, who are husband, father-in- law and mother-in-law of the victim.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and have entered into a compromise. After the aforesaid, applicant no.1 and daughter of opposite party no.2 have decided to live together as husband and wife. He further submits that compromise deed could not be filed before the court concerned due to health issues of the wife of applicant no.1. He next submits that applicants are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the daughter of opposite party no.2.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that incident was supported by the statement of the daughter of opposite party no.2 and medical evidence, there is specific allegation against the applicants and prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. As regards submission of counsel for the applicants that after out of court settlement husband and wife are living together, there is nothing on record to show the same and also the fact that on the basis of out of court settlement parties have compromised, which has been verified by any competent court. He further submits that all the other contentions relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it can not be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants. There is no illegality and infirmity in the order impugned.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

7. In view of above, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the present matter. As per the allegations made in the F.I.R. as well as the statements made by witnesses of the charge sheet, it is crystal clear that soon after the marriage the all the in-laws including the husband of the informant were demanding additional demand of dowry and on account of non fulfillment thereof she was subjected to cruelty and mental agony for non fulfillment of additional dowry. The submissions made by the applicants' 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, (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 and lastly (ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315.

8. 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.

9. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated

12.06.2024, cognizance/ summoning order dated 08.08.2024 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.

10. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Abhishek Singh ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

of 2024 (State Vs. Zubair and others), arising out of Case Crime No.52 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit, pending in the court of CJM, Pilibhit.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. has been lodged on

14.02.2024 at 15:20 hours under Sections 498A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act against seven named accused persons including the applicants, with the allegations that marriage of daughter of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with applicant no.1 as per Muslim Rites and Rituals in November, 2022. After some time of marriage, in-laws of daughter of opposite party no.2 asked her to bring Rs 5 lakh from her maternal home to open a tailoring shop for her husband. Due to this reason, they used to abuse and beat her for non-fulfillment of additional dowry demand. About 7-8 months ago, the victim was kicked and punched in her stomach while she was pregnant and without getting her treated, she was sent to informant's house. The informant got the victim treated in Rammuti Smarak Hospital, Bhojipura, Bareilly and she is admitted in the hospital till date. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted only against the applicants, who are husband, father-in- law and mother-in-law of the victim.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and have entered into a compromise. After the aforesaid, applicant no.1 and daughter of opposite party no.2 have decided to live together as husband and wife. He further submits that compromise deed could not be filed before the court concerned due to health issues of the wife of applicant no.1. He next submits that applicants are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the daughter of opposite party no.2.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that incident was supported by the statement of the daughter of opposite party no.2 and medical evidence, there is specific allegation against the applicants and prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. As regards submission of counsel for the applicants that after out of court settlement husband and wife are living together, there is nothing on record to show the same and also the fact that on the basis of out of court settlement parties have compromised, which has been verified by any competent court. He further submits that all the other contentions relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it can not be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicants. There is no illegality and infirmity in the order impugned.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

7. In view of above, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the present matter. As per the allegations made in the F.I.R. as well as the statements made by witnesses of the charge sheet, it is crystal clear that soon after the marriage the all the in-laws including the husband of the informant were demanding additional demand of dowry and on account of non fulfillment thereof she was subjected to cruelty and mental agony for non fulfillment of additional dowry. The submissions made by the applicants' 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, (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 and lastly (ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315.

8. 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.

9. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated

12.06.2024, cognizance/ summoning order dated 08.08.2024 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.

10. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Abhishek Singh ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad