Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 February, 2021
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1897 of 2021
Applicant :- Ashok Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- K.C. Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri K.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 19.11.2020, as well as the further proceedings of Case No. 20981 of 2020 (State of U.P. Vs. Raju and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0328 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304B, 323 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Rohaniya, District Varanasi, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that marriage of applicant's son was solemnized with sister of opposite party no. 2 in the year 2015. Since, the deceased was mentally and physically tortured by the applicant as well as by other family members of the applicant for non-fulfilment of additional dowry, the first information report was lodged on 23.08.2020. A perusal of the F.I.R. goes to show that there are allegations of mental and physical harassment of deceased by the applicant as well as his family members.
In the statement of brother of the deceased also it has been stated that the applicant as well as other family members have beaten the victim due to which she has sustained injuries, for which, she was admitted in the hospital and has expired during treatment.
4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that at this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
6. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicant and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:
(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866,
(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335,
(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,
(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122,
(v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682,
(vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454,
(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and laslty
(ix) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143.
7.In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
8. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid State case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.
9. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
10. For a period of 30 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
11. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.2.2021
Priya
