Allahabad High Court
Rahul Chaudhari And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 February, 2021
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2043 of 2021
Applicant :- Rahul Chaudhari And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Singh,Anurag Vajpeyi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjai Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 28.07.2019 as well as quash the entire proceedings of case no. 10262 of 2019 (State of U.P. vs. Rahul Chaudhar), arising out of Case Crime NO. 0916 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 313 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sigra, District Varanasi pending in the Court of CJM, Varanasi.
3. Brief facts of the case are that engagement ceremony of opposite party no. 2 with the applicant Rahul Chaudhary took place on 15.11.2015 at Hotel Rajhansh Visdupur, Jamshedpur, Jharkhnad and she was married with the applicant no. 1 on 22.02.2016 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. The parents of opposite party no. 2 gave and spent sufficient money as per their capacity in the marriage of opposite party no. 2. However, when the applicant no. 1 (husband) alongwith other family members started harassing the opposite party no. 2 for non fulfilment of additional demand of dowry, then the FIR was lodged wherein the details regarding harassment by the applicants have been alleged. As per the FIR, during the pregnancy of opposite party no. 2, she was beaten by the applicants, due to which, her pregnancy was terminated. After proper investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the applicants under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 313 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are the husband and mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2 respectively. The present FIR has been lodged on 20.12.2018 at 23:35 hours for an incident the date and time of which has not been disclosed. Regarding allegations with respect of the termination of the pregnancy of the opposite party no. 2, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no. 2 was suffering from Chronic Calcific Pancreatitis, due to which she lost her child. The allegations made in the FIR are false and frivolous. In support of his case, he has placed a document on page-76 dated 03.11.2016 of this application. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that no offence against the applicant nos. 1 and 2 is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. He, therefore, submits that the charge-sheet, summoning order as well as entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse of process of Court.
5. Learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that at this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence. He also states that perusal of the document which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants, does not clear that due to aforesaid disease , the pregnancy of opposite party no. 2 was terminated. There is nothing on record to show that the allegations made in the FIR is baseless and false. Therefore, the applicants have been rightly charge sheeted in the present case. He also states that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Court below.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
7. 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 applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants 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 lastly
(ix) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143.
8. 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 applicants 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.
9. 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.
10. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.2.2021
Monika
