Allahabad High Court
Vinay Verma And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 July, 2019
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6739 of 2012
Applicant :- Vinay Verma And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Nipun Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Neeraj Tomar,Onkar Singh
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Shri Sumir Suri, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Onkar Singh learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 and learned AGA for the State of UP.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicants to quash the charge-sheet dated 26.10.2011 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.7611/9 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No.714 of 2011 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & 3/4 DP Act, P.S.-Khatauli, District-Muzaffarnagar, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar.
Earlier by an order dated 23.2.2012, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of Allahabad High Court but the mediation between the parties concerned has failed as the parties are not willing for mediation.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant No.1-Vinay Verma is husband, applicant No.2-Raj Kumar Verma is Jeth, applicant No.3-Vinod Verma is Devar, applicant No.4-Smt. Babita is Jethani and applicant No.5-Smt. Kela Devi is Mother-in-law of the opposite party No.2.
At the time of filing the present application, prayer for quashing the charge-sheet dated 26.1-.2011 and further proceeding of Case No.7611/9 of 2011, so far as the applicant No.1 (husband) is concerned, was refused by this Court vide order dated 18.4.2013. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that so far as the applicants No.2 to 5 are concerned, the general allegations have been levelled against them in the impugned FIR. The applicants No.2 to 5 have been falsely implicated only because they are family members of applicant No.1. It is next submitted that the applicants No.2 to 5 have not tortured or harassed the opposite party No.2 in any manner and entire allegations against them are totally false and concocted. Learned counsel for the applicants lastly submitted that since the applicant No.1(husband) is facing trial, therefore, the proceeding against the applicants No.2 to 5 is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submitted that considering the material evidences and allegations against the applicant on record, as on date, as per prosecution case, the cognizable offence against the applicant is made out. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as materials on record against the applicant, the criminal proceedings against the applicant cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. There is no illegality in the impugned Charge-sheet dated 26.10.2011. It is submitted that this application is liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 reiterating the arguments advanced on behalf of the State submitted that the cognizable offence is fully made out against the applicant.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record, I find that there is allegation of harassment, torture and demand of dowry against all the accused persons. There is specific allegation of assault by the accused persons to the opposite party No.2 (Smt. Ashu Verma). The injury report of Smt. Verma is also on record as Annexure-3 to the application. On perusal of the same, I find that there are five injuries on her body and pain in her abdomen has also been observed. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sprangly, only in such a appropriate cases, where uncontroverted allegations made in FIR or charge-sheet and the evidence relied in support of same do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage.
It is also well settled that at the stage of summoning the accused, the court below is not required to go into the merit and demerit of the case. Genuineness or otherwise of the allegation cannot be even determined at the stage of summoning the accused.
In view of above, this Court does not find that this case fall in a categories as recognized by the Apex Court for quashing the criminal proceeding of the trial court at pre-trial stage. Considering the facts, circumstances and nature of allegations against the applicant in this case, the cognizable offence is made out. There is no manifest error of law in the impugnedCharge-sheet dated 26.10.2011. The impugned criminal proceeding under the facts of this case cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court. Hence, criminal proceeding against the applicant is not liable to be quashed. The relief as claimed by the applicant in this application is, accordingly, refused.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in case some protection is granted by this Court, the applicant will surrender before the concerned court below. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the State does not dispute such prayer of the applicant.
Considering the last prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case applicant appears before the concerned court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, the bail application of the applicant shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with settled law law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 755 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 437 Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For the period of 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
With the above observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.7.2019
LN Tripathi
