Allahabad High Court
Amit vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 February, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12873 of 2018
Applicant :- Amit
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Mullick
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Prakash Dubey
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Anil Mullick, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Prakash Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, and Sri G. P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 22.03.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (A.C.J.M.), Court No. 9, Meerut, passed in Case No. 1188 of 2017 (State vs. Parul and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 66 of 2016, under Section 498A, 323, 324, 307 & 354 of I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P. S. Bhawanpur, District Meerut with a further prayer to stay further proceeding in the aforesaid case.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the trial court had rejected the discharge application of the accused applicant vide order dated 22.03.2018 observing therein that the name of the accused applicant is mentioned in the F.I.R. along with other co-accused and during investigation in statement under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., the allegations have been levelled against the accused applicant and after having found sufficient evidence the charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken against him and at this stage, it is only seen as to whether there was sufficient evidence against the accused applicant prima-facie to frame charge or not and finding that there was sufficient evidence, the court below had rejected the said application erroneously. He has drawn attention towards the facts of the case in F.I.R. which was lodged by the informant on 18.02.2016 at 17:30 hours. It is mentioned in it that the victim was married to the co-accused Parul on 07.12.2013 and at that time sufficient dowry was given including a swift car, some cash and jewellery and in total Rs. 15-16 lacs were spent but the applicant and other co-accused named in the F.I.R. were not satisfied with the same. The accused applicant was posted as a constable in Muzaffar Nagar. He was also not happy with the dowry and was making additional demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- and a golden chain. Then the victim had stated that her father was not in a position to satisfy the said demand and thereafter the demand was increased and she was beaten up on many occassions and she was thrown out of her matrimonial home 8-9 months prior to lodging of this F.I.R. The victim remained at her parents' house for six months and thereafter compromise was arrived at with the intervention of some persons namely, Mukesh, Pramod and Tejvir as the accused side apologized and the victim sent back to her matrimonial home but the demand was again raised and she was harassed by keeping her hungry. On 16.02.2016, she had tried to commit suicide because of harassment done by the accused side and she had received various injuries. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted against the accused applicant along with other co-accused who are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law.
It is further submitted that initially charge sheet was submitted only against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law but the circle officer had ordered further investigation and then further statement of victim was recorded in which she levelled allegation of molestation also against the accused applicant in order to falsely implicate him. It is further argued that the accused used to reside at different place i.e. village Hoshiyarpur while the other accused i.e. husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law resided at Chirola and he has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Seenivasan vs. State by Inspector of Police and another (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 636, relevant para no. 6 is quoted hereinbelow:
6. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we have perused the impugned order and other material placed on record. The Quash Petition was filed before the High Court by the A-5 to A-7. So far as A-5 is concerned, as she died during the pendency of the proceedings, cause did not survive. So far as A-7, who is the wife of A-6, is concerned, the High Court has observed that there are no specific overt acts against her and she has been residing in a different address and at no point of time she had been in a joint family wherein the de facto complainant lived during the period the alleged demand of dowry is said to have been made. On the aforesaid ground, the High Court has quashed the Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.10115/18 proceedings so far as A-7 is concerned. So far as appellant-A-6 is concerned, the petition is dismissed by the High Court observing that there are some averments, against the appellant. It is not in dispute that the appellant-A-6, who is the husband of A-7, was residing at a different address during the time alleged demand was made. Further, we have perused the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. Mainly the specific allegations are only against the husband and immediate family members. So far as the appellant who is A-1s paternal uncles son, a bald allegation is made that he along with his mother and wife were abusing the complainant. In absence of any specific allegations against him, we are of the view that the appellant also stands on same the footing of A-7 against whom proceedings are quashed. As the appellant was not even residing in the address of the complainant and his family members who are A-1 to A- 4 and in absence of specific allegations and overt acts, we are of the view that if the proceedings are allowed to go on against the appellant, it amounts to abuse of process. Applying the ratio laid down in the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors.1, we are of the view that it is a 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.10115/18 clear case which falls within one of the categories of the aforesaid case where power can be exercised under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.
After having cited this ruling, it is argued that the proceedings were quashed against the accused because his address was found to be different from the address of the other family members, therefore, in the present case also, the accused was living at different address at the time of occurrence, therefore, he was not involved in the present case, therefore, proceedings should be quashed against him.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of quashing of the impugned order and have argued that the accused side had caused nine injuries to the victim which consists contusions, incised wounds, etc. and the victim has given statement to the effect that she was assaulted by the accused also to which learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the injury was attributed to the other accused and not to the accused applicant.
I have gone through the F.I.R. It is specifically mentioned in it that the accused applicant was also not happy with the dowry and had demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- and a golden chain and at this stage this Court cannot evaluate the evidence in proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.which had come before the trial court and the same would require full trial.
The arguments which are made by the learned counsel for the applicant are related to factual aspect which cannot be seen at this stage in the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the proceedings as well as impugned order, is refused.
Accordingly, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021
VPS
