Allahabad High Court
Lalit Shukla & Ors. vs State Of U.P. & Another on 1 June, 2017
Bench: Ravindra Nath Mishra-Ii
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 25
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1084 of 2017
Applicant :- Lalit Shukla & Ors.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Srivastava,Anilesh Tewari,Savita Tiwari,Vibhanshu Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II,J.
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of charge sheet no. 79/2016 and criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 332 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 118 of 2015 under Sections 498A, 354,377,323,506 I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station- Sangipur (Mahila Thana), District- Pratapgarh titled as State Vs. Lalit Shukla & Others pending in the Court of A.C.J.M, Court No. 14, Pratapgarh.
2. Brief facts in the backdrop of which this petition has been filed before this Court are that the complainant was married to accused Lalit Shukla on 24.11.2012 according to Hindu rituals and after marriage when she went to her in laws house, demand of Swift Car was made. On refusal, she was physically harassed to the extent that she was subjected to unnatural sex by her husband. She was beaten up several time. Her Jeth had bad intention on her. She was also tried to be ablazed by sprinkling kerosin oil and ultimately she was ousted from house. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet under Sections 498 (A),377,354,323,506 I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. For quashment of this charge sheet, the petitioner has come to this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during his argument has cited order of Division Bench of this Court in Misc Bench No. 3958 of 2016 dated 02.05.2016 and filed as annexure no.8 in which the Bench has made observations that there was no evidence to indicate commission of offence under Section 377 I.P.C was available. However, despite order of Division Bench, Investigating Officer again invoked Section 377 I.P.C, therefore, anguished by the act of Investigating Officer, the Division Bench vide order dated 19.09.2016 further made following observation:-
" In any case, in case Section 377 I.P.C was to be invoked at a later stage, after passing of order dated 2nd May, 2016, surely it was the duty of the prosecution to have filed an application before this Court, indicating changed circumstances so that order dated 2nd May, 2016 could have been re-considered by the Court. Needful, however, has not been done".
4. However, Investigating Officer having found sufficient material finally submitted charge sheet in the Court under Section 377 I.P.C also. The argument of learned counsel that there is no medical evidence supporting offence under Section 377 can not be accepted for quashing of charge sheet. Apart from medical evidence, Court has to look into oral evidence of the complainant and that can be done only by the Trial Court. The Division Bench while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 Constitution of India has directed the petitioner to challenge the offence under Section 377 I.P.C before appropriate forum and in appropriate proceedings as charge sheet has already been submitted. The petitioner has opportunity to challenge it before Trial Court and pray for dropping of charge under Section 377 while framing of charge sheet against accused.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has made following observations in Para-35 of judgment:-
" The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. the allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection".
6. The observation of Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above is of no help of the petitioner. The Hon'ble Court has observed that there is no dearth of cases of misuse of Section 498 (A), 377 I.P.C and so allegations of the complainant should be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
7. Taking clue of above observation, the criminal proceedings pending in the Court which has been initiated on the basis of charge sheet submitted by Investigating Officer who after having found sufficient evidence filed charge sheet can not be quashed unless facts are inquired into. Any probe in investigation would amount to entering into inquiry regarding sufficiency of evidence which is not permissible while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In Lee Kun Hee and others Vs. State of U.p and others JT 2012 (2) SC 237 Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that Court in exercising of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations and appreciate evidence, if any, available on record. Whether the charge ultimately can be substantiated or not, would be a subject matter of trial.
8. I do not find any substantial reason to quash the proceedings. As directed by Division Bench of this Court in Misc Bench No. 3958 of 2016 Lalit Shukla and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. Petitioner should approach to the Trial Court and challenge the charge under Section 377 I.P.C at the time of framing to charge sheet.
9. Hence, petition is liable to be dismissed and, therefore, dismissed.
10. Before concluding the order, it may not be out of place to direct Trial Court to consider expeditiously bail in the light of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P 2009(3) ADJ 322 (SC) if bail application is moved within 30 days from the date of obtaining certify copy of this order.
Order Date :- 1.6.2017
Pachhere/-
