Babboo Kushwaha And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2014 Latest Caselaw 1965 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

                                                                                         Reserved                                                                   
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4782 of 2004       AFR    
 
Applicant :- Babboo Kushwaha And Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- P.S. Yadav
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer for quashing of the proceedings in Complaint Case No.1824/2002 pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba whereby the applicants have been summoned under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahoba, District Mahoba, on the basis of the complaint moved by opposite party no.2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba.

The facts of the case as discernible from the records are that proceeding of the aforesaid Complaint Case No.1824/2002 was initiated by opposite party no.2 Smt. Savitri by moving a complaint (annexure no.1) before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba against the present applicants wherein it was stated, inter-alia, that the complainant was married with applicant no.1 Babboo Kushwaha two and half years ago according to the Hindu rites and customs. In the marriage, the father of the bride gave Rs.21,000/- in cash and articles worth Rs.25,000/- as gift. The marriage took place in village Karhara Kala.

The complainant after marriage came to the house of her in-laws. Thereafter she went to Hamirpur and performed her marital obligation. Her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and other relatives in due course of time demanded dowry for Rs.20,000/- and began to maltreat her. The complainant told about the aforesaid maltreatment to her family members and villagers when she came to her parental home. The parents of the complainant tried to settle the matter with the applicants but no worthy outcome resulted. The in-laws of the complainant kept on torturing her on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.

Again, on 27.09.2002, the applicants jointly demanded dowry from the complainant. On being reconciled by the complainant, the applicants namely Babboo Kushwaha (husband), Rajoo, Manchandra (Dever) Kripal Singh, Basanta (Jeth) Sukh Lal (Sasur) and Smt. Munni Devi (mother-in-law) assaulted her jointly and drove her out of house. They also threatened her to life. Besides, the applicants also forcibly took possession of her cash and ornaments which the complainant was keeping for her exclusive use. The complainant tried to lodge the report at the Police Station but no report was lodged. Therefore, the complainant was left with no other option but to file the complaint against the applicants. The complainant got herself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C and her witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

The learned Magistrate, after hearing the complainant/opposite party no.2, on merits of the case found prima facie ground existing against the applicants for summoning them under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, vide order dated 30.01.2003. Against the aforesaid order of the Magistrate, dated 30.01.2003, the applicants filed Criminal Revision being No.61/2003 Babboo Kushwaha and others Vs. Smt. Savitri and another before the Sessions Judge, Mahoba challenging the very summoning order dated 30.01.2003, whereupon the matter was made over for disposal to the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mahoba who after hearing parties on merits of the case, dismissed the revision vide judgment and order dated 06.04.2004. Now the applicants have filed the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire proceedings.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in this case, the entire proceedings initiated at the instance of opposite party no.2, Smt. Savitri is sheer misuse of the process of the Court for the reasons that general and vague allegations have been levelled against the entire family member roping in as many as seven innocent persons of the family including husband of the complainant namely Babboo Kushwaha. There is no specific allegations against the applicants who happen to be in-laws of the complainant in capacity of Jeth, Dever, father-in-law and mother-in-law. The general and vague allegations have been made to implicate innocent persons of the family in false case of cruelty and dowry demand and the court below was not justified while it summoned the applicants overlooking bald and general allegations made in the complaint. This practice has been deprecated even by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions.

Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of U.P. and another.

Learned counsel for the applicants further added that proceedings initiated at the instance of opposite party no.2 against the applicants cannot be said to be lawful proceeding and the same are liable to be quashed as the proceeding initiated by moving the complaint lacks substance for reason that no offence has ever been committed by the applicants.

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submitted that in this case, the complainant was not only maltreated or tortured but was also demoralized in the name of illicit relationship by her in-laws which cannot be viewed with leniency. The entire proceedings were initiated by moving the complaint with specific allegations of demand of dowry followed by torture on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry so made. There is no such fulcrum to allege that the allegations made are not specific against the applicants. There is specific allegations of demand of dowry at the instance of the applicants and specific allegations of beating up and cruelty being perpetrated on the complainant.

Considered the above submissions also.

The moot point involved for consideration in this case is whether the proceeding initiated by the complainant is vitiated in law as the same is misuse of process of the court? In so far as relief sought in the instant application is concerned, the same relates to quashing of the proceeding against the applicants. The plea raised for the same is basically confined to the argument that the entire proceedings is nothing but hoax as the same is outcome of vague and ambiguous allegations made in the complaint by which husband and in-laws of the complainant have been roped in.

In this context, I perused the copy of very complaint annexed as annexure no.1 by the applicants wherein allegations regarding demand of dowry, torture and cruelty being perpetrated by the applicants against the complainant have been levelled. In paragraph no.9, it has been specifically stated that all the applicants in furtherance of common intention had beaten up the complainant. This very paragraph specifies each and every applicant by name and alleges participation in assault given to the complainant. Therefore, the allegations made regarding beating up of the complainant cannot be termed as vague, ambiguous or general but it specifies and assigns specific part played by each of the applicants in furtherance of common intention.

In the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, (Geeta Mehrotra (supra), it is worth mentioning that in that case also, the accused were involved under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The first information report was lodged by the informant (wife) against husband and her in-laws. The factual aspect of the case was considered on merits where it was observed that no allegation against Km. Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names was disclosed on record which was not found sufficient. In this context, paragraph no.20 of the said decision is quite relevant which is reproduced hereinbelow:

"20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding."

Here in the given case at hand, as observed above the allegations of assault being caused to the victim/opposite party no.2 was specifically alleged against the applicants who are all male members, therefore, the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Apex Court is distinguishable on the facts that the allegations levelled against the applicants are not general in nature but on the face it specifies role of applicant in causing concerted assault on complainant/opposite party no.2.

This very aspect of the case is distinguishable for the reasoning that specific and overt act has been alleged against the applicants which dis-entitles them to avail advantage of the aforesaid decision. Hon'ble Apex Court in the reported case (supra) was conscious of distinction between general allegation and specific allegation and has observed in paragraph no.25 which is extracted hereinbelow:

"25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over-implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding."

In the backdrop of above factual aspect and the discussion made, it is obvious that the guiding factor for quashing entire proceeding is rested on general and vague allegations whereas the allegations which are unambiguous and specifying role of accused in the commission of very crime call for no interference. Here the extent and nature of accusation assigns specific overt act to the applicants for perpetrating violence and cruelty against the complainant.

To sum up, I do not find any inherent infirmity in the proceedings initiated against the applicants, therefore, prayer for quashing of the proceedings in the aforesaid complaint case is liable to be rejected. The instant application under 482 Cr.P.C. being devoid of merits is dismissed.

Interim order granted earlier by the Court dated 09.06.2004 stands vacated.

Order Date :- 23.5.2014

rkg