Allahabad High Court
Rahul & Others vs State Of U.P. on 12 May, 2014
Bench: Vinod Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 53 A.F.R.
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3708 of 2003
Applicant :- Rahul & Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Vivek Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Sunil Vashistha
Hon'ble Vinod Prasad,J.
Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Sunil Vashistha, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned AGA in opposition.
The four applicants namely Rahul, Ram Pal, Smt. Harbiri and Km. Rakhi consisting of a family through the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court with the prayer that the proceedings of Complaint Case No.322 of 2002, Smt. Kusum Vs. Rahul and others, under Sections 498-A, 504, 50, 323, 147 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sardhana, district Meerut pending against them before Judicial Magistrate be quashed.
According to the complaint Annexure no.4, which was filed by respondent no.2 Smt. Kusum before Judicial Magistrate, Sardhana, district Meerut as Complaint Case No.322/9 of 2002, against applicant-accused no.1 Rahul (husband of complainant victim respondent no. 2), applicant no.2 Ram Pal (father-in-law of respondent no. 2), Smt. Harbiri (mother-in-law of respondent no. 2) and applicant no.4 Km. Rakhi (nanad of victim), she was married with applicant no.1 Rahul on 26.2.2001 according to Hindu customs and rites in village Navthuwa district Meerut. After the marriage the complainant started residing with her husband and performing her marital responsibilities. After 15 days of the marriage, she was taunted and harassed for the demand of dowry. Although the complainant tried to pacify in-laws and her husband but her efforts went in vain. It is further alleged that Rs.51,000/-in cash was given by the father of the victim on sagai and Rs.21,000/- was given at dwarchar. According to the victim, she was assaulted also for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. Her in-laws and husband adopted rapacious attitude and when the brother of the victim came to the in-laws house to take back his sister, he was also assaulted by the husband of the victim complainant.
It has further been alleged that Rs.15,000/- for construction of the house was given by the complainant's father to her husband and in-laws. With the other allegations, victim has filed the complaint.
On the strength of the complaint and the statements, the applicants were summoned to face trial for offence under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 323, 147 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act vide order dated 19.9.2002 by Judicial Magistrate, Sardhana, district, Meerut.
It is this prosecution, which the applicants wants to be quashed.
After hearing both the sides, what transpires is that so far as husband and in-laws are concerned, there are some specific allegations against them of taunting and torturing the wife because of non-fulfillment of dowry because of their rapacious attitude. However, so far as applicant no.4 Km. Rakhi is concerned, she being an unmarried daughter, no specific allegations against her has been levelled.
Law concerning quashing of the proceedings at its initial stage has been subjected to mentioning judicial pronouncements by the Apex Court. State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr) 426, is one of the cardinal decisions. In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court has spelt out various grounds on the basis of which, prosecution can be scuttled at its initial stage.
So far as the present case is concerned, there is no ground to quash the prosecution of the husband, father-in-law and the mother-in-law as they are directly related with the marriage and demand of dowry. Their case does not fall in any of the categories enumerated by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision Bhajan Lal (supra). This application for the aforesaid three applicants Rahul, Ram Pal and Harbiri stands dismissed and stay order granted to them stands vacated.
Trial court is directed to take up the trial in their respect as early as possible and conclude it if possible, within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.
So far as applicant no.4 Km. Rakhi is concerned, she is an unmarried nanad. There is no specific allegation against her. It will be preposterous to cogitate that Km. Rakhi being an unmarried damsel will demand dowry. Normally in the social set up like ours innocent family members are roped in to take revenge. Harassment of an unmarried damsel should not be permitted to go on in a casual manner. Inherent power has been preserved with this Court to do ex-debito justice and save harassment of innocent persons. Power of the Magistrate cannot be wielded to settle down personal scores and seek vengeance. It is not uncommon that in family feuds even innocent relatives are framed in with ulterior motives of harassing the entire family. While no guilty should escape punishment likewise no innocent should be harassed by an unseruplous litigant may be a family member.
I do not find any specific allegation against applicant no.4 Km. Rakhi. In her respect, complaint and statements are too omnibus and to general, which are insufficient for her prosecution.
In view of aforesaid, this 482 Cr.P.C. application for applicant no.4 Smt. Rakhi stands allowed and in her respect proceeding of Complaint Case No.322 of 2002, Smt. Kusum Vs. Rahul and others, under Sections 498-A, 504, 50, 323, 147 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sardhana, district Meerut is hereby quashed.
This 482 Cr.P.C. Application is allowed in part as above.
Let this order be communicated to the trial Magistrate immediately.
Order Date :- 12.5.2014/RK
