Smt. Vandeep Kaur vs State Of U.P. And Another
2018 Latest Caselaw 73 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

RESERVED/AFR
 
Court No. - 63
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37129 of 2012
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Vandeep Kaur
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Mishra,Amit Daga
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Chandra Shekhar Chaturved,Satyendra Narayan Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan,J.

Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Chandra Shekhar Chaturved, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 are present.

Heard and perused the material on record.

The applicant Smt. Vandeep Kaur, through this application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet and entire proceedings of Case No. 4038/2012 (State Vs. Smt. Sudarshan Kaur and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 157 of 2012, under Section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Muzaffarnagar and further prayed to stay the proceedings in the aforesaid case.

The brief facts which are requisite for the adjudication of the application are that the first information report was lodged on 21.2.2012 with the allegation that marriage of the daughter of informant was solemnized with Jasdeep Singh on 5.7.2009 at Saharanpur. In the marriage, sufficient dowry like jewellery, clothes and other household items were given but the husband and in-laws were not satisfied and on raising additional demand, they used to torture her. In the meantime, on 18.3.2011, deceased had gone with her husband to America. On 8.2.2012, she returned back to Muzaffarnagar and narrated that her husband Jasdeep Singh, mother-in-law Smt. Sudarshan Kaur and jethani-applicant Smt. Vandeep Kaur by raising the demand of dowry beaten her due to which she committed suicide on 21.2.2012 at her Maika. The Investigating Officer after concluding the investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant, husband and mother-in-law.

Feeling aggrieved, the applicant came up before this court in this application.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the incident has apparently taken place inside the house of the opposite party no. 2 and as such burden of proving the unnatural death of deceased lies squarely and solely on opposite party no. 2. The applicant is Jethani of the deceased having a separate residence and living peacefully with her husband and daughter at Chandigarh whereas deceased was living at America till the date of alleged occurrence. Since the applicant is residing separately in different State, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant is beneficiary of the dowry demanded, if any. There is no specific allegation, evidence and overt act assigned to the applicant. The entire prosecution story is based on false allegation. It is also not being cleared that what demand were made and by whom the said demand were made. In view of Section 106 Evidence Act, the burden lies on the informant in whose house the occurrence took place.

It is further submitted by submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no evidence to suggest that deceased was subjected to any cruelty or harassment in connection to the demand of dowry soon before her death and in absence of such fact, the entire prosecution story becomes wholly illegal and unwarranted. The presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act must be based on some legally admissible evidence which cannot be based on fiction or another presumption. The continuance of proceedings are nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. The applicant Jethani having three years old daughter and is residing with her husband in another State, hence it cannot be said that she has played any role whatsoever. As per post-mortem report, only one ligature mark on the neck was found and cause of death is suicidal hanging. No bodily injury and mark of resistance was found on the body of the deceased. It is an admitted fact that the applicant was having separate residence and living peacefully with her husband and daughter in Chandigarh whereas deceased was residing with her parents at Muzzaffarnagar, U.P., therefore it cannot be presumed by any stretch of imagination that the applicant had any role to play in either the married life of the deceased or in any other relevant fact which could have been a reason for drastic step taken by the deceased. Merely on being a relative, no criminal action be fasten against the applicant.

The scope and ambit of power under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been examined by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another, AIR 2003 SC 2612, and observed as follows:

"The grounds on which power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings basically are (1) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused (2) where the uncontraverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, (3) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure or the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceedings. But this power has to be exercised in a rare case and with great circumspection".

In the case in hand, the applicant is Jethani of the deceased and admittedly residing separately, therefore, she cannot be said to be the beneficiary of the dowry demanded, if any. At the time of occurrence, deceased was residing with her parents at Muzaffarnagar. In absence of any specific allegation or over act, no criminal liability be fasten against the applicant.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 Law Suit (SC) 716, held 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."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, 2010 (3) G.L.H. 258, held that "every High Court has interent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution but Courts failing to use the power for advancement of justice can also lead to grave in justice. On the facts of the case wife filed a complaint against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, unmarried brother-in-law and married sister-in-law. However, there are no specific allegations against married sister-in-law and unmarried brother-in-law in the complaint and none of the witnesses have alleged any role of both of them. Married sister-in-law and unmarried brother-in-law had never lived with the complainant and her husband. They have never visited a place where any alleged incident had taken place. The complaint is meant to harass and humiliate the husband's relatives and permitting the complainant to peruse this complaint would be an abuse of process of law."

The High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Radhika Versus State of Uttarakhand, Laws (UTN) 2010 7 43), has held that "admittedly, Radhika sister of the Chandra Prakash was married much prior to the marriage of the deceased with Chandra Prakash. There is no evidence that Radhika is permanently residing with her parents. Mere allegation against her that whenever she visited her parental house, she would instigated her brother Chandra Prakash, mother Jeewant Devi and sister Hansa to give beatings to Shobha do not constitute any offence. There are mere allegations based on hearsay evidence. Devendra Dutt Gairola is independent person whose statement was recorded under section 161 cr.p.c. According to him, one fine day when he was sitting on his roof, Shobha came to meet his wife. She was having several contusions on her hands, legs and mouth. According to her, her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in- law Hansa had been giving her beatings daily. She also disclosed that they were harassing and beating her for not fulfilling the demand for the scooter. However, he did not state that any thing was disclosed by Shobha against Radhika. Even her father Rewadhar Murari, brother Rajendra Murari have not alleged anything against petitioner Radhika. The allegation made by Leela Devi do not constitute any offence under Section 304-B/498-A/306 IPC against the petitioner."

In view of what has been submitted and discussed above, the applicant is Jethani and residing in another State whereas the deceased had committed suicide at the residence of her parents, therefore, the liability, if any, can be fasten against the husband who is responsible for welfare, security and maintenance of his wife. In case, proceeding is allowed to continue, it would certainly be an abuse of the process of the law. The application has substance and is liable to be allowed.

The application is allowed and the proceeding of Case No. 4038/2012 (State Vs. Smt. Sudarshan Kaur and others), under Section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Muzaffarnagar is hereby quashed.

Order Date :- 19.4.2018

Prakhar