Ashok & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 1675 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

	Court No. 53
 
A.F.R.
 

 
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 4836 OF 2003
 

 
Ashok and others             .......              Applicants
 
Vs.
 
State of U.P.   And another .........        Respondents
 

 
Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.

Half a dozen applicants consisting of a family of Smt. Kamla widow of Halkaiya applicant no. 4, her three sons Ashok, Ramesh and Lakhan, applicants 1 to 3 and her two daughters Km. Anita and Smt. Rekha, who is married to Nand Kishore, resident of Sakurpur, Delhi, through this Application u/s 482 have prayed for following reliefs:-

(a) to quash summoning order dated 13.3.97 and order dated 3.3.2001 by which orders Judicial magistrate Gortha, district Jhansi has rejected protest application/review petition filed by the applicants in complaint case no. 455 of 1996, Smt. Rani versus Ashok and others;

(b) to quash revisional court's order dated 6.6.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Criminal Revision No. 57 of 2001, Ashok Kumar and others versus Smt. Rani and others;

(c ) to quash further proceedings of complaint case no. 455 of 1996, Smt. Rani versus Ashok and others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Gortha district Jhansi.

Further and additional prayer of the applicants is for stay of trial court proceedings of the aforesaid case pendete lite this application.

This application was called out in the revision of the list. Sri S.P. Sharma, learned advocate appeared for the applicants but inspite of service of notice, complainant Smt. Rani/respondent no.2 neither appeared nor has filed any counter affidavit. Albeit learned AGA representing respondent no. 1 State is present but no counter affidavit by State has also been filed. This 482 Cr.P.C. Application was filed eleven years ago and it cannot be kept pending in the racks of this courts without being finally disposed off for an indefinite period and no further time is desirable to be allowed to any one of the respondents to file counter affidavit and consequently with the help of counsel for the applicant and learned AGA this application is being dis posed off as under after vetting through the entire record carefully.

Smt. Rani respondent no. 2 was married with Ashok applicant no. 1 according to Hindu Customs and Rites in 1987. In August 1989, respondent complainant Smt. Rani on her own volition renounce the company of the husband, left her in-laws house and came back to her mother and started residing in her parental home in village Markua, Jhansi. Endeavours to re-induct her in the in-laws house made by the husband and his relatives resulted in vain. It is alleged that in the marriage of Ashok with Smt. Rani respondent no. 2, no demand of dowry was ever made nor the same was given. Respondent No. 2 was never tortured because of the rapacious dowry demand. It is further alleged that Ramesh and Lakhan are the dewars of respondent no. 2 whereas Km. Anita and Smt. Rekha are the unmarried and married nanads of the complainant Smt. Rani. They are the resident of mohalla Katra, Chhatarpur. It is further averred in paragraph 12 that because of the attitude of the wife, the marriage between applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 2 run riot and ultimately the husband filed a divorce case against the wife before District Judge, Chhatarpur, M.P. In the aforesaid divorce case, a decree of divorce was passed on 25.7.1992. A copy of the order passed by the District Judge, Chhatarpur, M.P. is annexure no. 5, which was filed in Misc. Civil Case No. 3A of 1992. Learned counsel urged that four years after the divorce was granted tha,t with mala fide intention, Smt. Rani respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint before Judicial Magistrate, Garotha, Jhansi as annexure No. 1 arraigning the applicants as accused of the offence. In the said complaint, wife alleged that applicants came to her parental house and by assaulting her, got her thumb impression on the divorce papers. It is further alleged that this incident had occurred on 7.11.96 at 12 noon when the complainant was all alone in her parental house. The intimation about the incident was given to SSP, Jhansi on 8.11.96 through registered post but no action was taken against the culprits and, therefore, as a last resort, on 6.12.96 vide annexure No. 1, that complainant Smt. Rani had lodged the complaint against the applicants as complaint case No. 455 of 1996, Smt. Rani Vs. Ashok and others for offences under sections 147, 452/34, 323, 504, 506/34, 352/34 I.P.C., P.S. Garotha, District Jhansi.

Following the procedure of the complaint case, statement of Smt. Rani under section 200 Cr.P.C. vide annexure No. 2 was recorded, wherein she has repeated her complaint allegation. Under section 202 Cr.P.C., complainant examined Pramod Singh, Govind Das as her witnesses.

On the basis of the complaint and the statements vide summoning order dated 13.3.97 annexure No. 6, learned trial Magistrate summoned the applicants to stand trial for offences under sections 452/34, 352/34, 506/34 I.P.C. fixing 16.6.97 for their appearance. Aggrieved by the order of summoning, the applicants took up the matter in Revision No. 81 of 1997 before Sessions Judge, Jhansi. The aforesaid revision was heard and decided by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi vide annexure No. 7 vide order dated 28.10.1999. Lower Revisional Court dismissed the revision filed by the applicants but directed trial Magistrate to consider objections of the accused and then consider viability of passing summoning order.

In pursuance of the order passed by Lower Revisional Court vide annexure No. 7 that accused raised an objection but their objection too was rejected by Judicial Magistrate, Garotha vide order dated 3.3.2001, which order is annexure No. 8. Aggrieved by rejection order dated 3.3.2001, the matter was again taken up in Revision No. 57 of 2001 before Sessions Judge, Jhansi unsuccessfully as revision again was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Jhansi vide order dated 6.6.2003, which is annexure No. 9.

With the checkered history as aforesaid, applicants accused have invoked the inherent jurisdiction with the prayer to quash the summoning orders dated 13.3.1997 and 3.3.2001. They have further prayed to quash revisional order dated 6.6.2003. Further prayer is to quash the proceedings of complaint case No. 455 of 1996 pending before Judicial Magistrate, Garotha, Jhansi.

From the narration of facts stated as above, it is perceptibly clear that a decree of divorce was passed in the year 1992 between the husband and the wife. Four years thereafter the complaint was filed by the wife with the allegations that her husband, his brothers, married sister-in-law and unmarried sisters, all came from M.P. to Jhansi, entered into her house and assaulted her. The accused also got her thumb impressions on the divorce papers. Such allegations in view of judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Chhatarpur, M.P., does not hold water at all. It is preposterous to cogitate and believe these allegations that four years after obtaining decree of divorce, u/s13(b) Hindu Marriage Act,through a divorce petition jointly filed both by the husband and the wife, that the husband and his siblings will travel all the way fromChhatarpur, M.P. to Jhansi, U.P. all of a sudden without any rhyme or reason or causa causans and will assault the wife and get her thumb impression on the divorce papers. There was absolutely no need from them to indulge into such a naive act. It is thus apparent ex facie from the record that present prosecution was launched against the applicants only to wreck vengeance and seek vendatta by harassing them because marriage between Ashok, applicant no.1, and Rani respondent no.2 ran into rough whether leading to divorce. This is one of the case, which is squarely covered with more than one category enumerated by the apex court in State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal: 1992 SCC (Cr) 426 necessitating exercising of inherent power to do ex debito justice and quash a malafide prosecution. It is nothing but misuse the power of the Court to harass innocent persons including unmarried girl and a married lady. Respondent No. 2 Smt. Rani cannot be allowed to wield the authority of the Court to seek personal vengeance and vendetta.

In view of aforesaid, the prosecution against the applicants through complaint case no. 455 of 1996, Smt. Rani Vs. Ashok and others stands quashed. This 482 Cr.P.C. Application is allowed.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Magistrate concerned for its intimation.

Dt.13.5.2014

Arvind/-4836/03