Allahabad High Court
Smt. Samme Dei & Another vs State Of U.P. & Another on 12 January, 2021
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 29
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2761 of 2020
Applicant :- Smt. Samme Dei & Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6225 of 2020 - State Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 0147 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Katra Bazar, District - Gonda as well as the charge sheet no. 1/2020, dated 05.09.2020.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that present litigation is out come to matrimonial dispute between the applicant and private opposite parties. Applicant no. 1 is mother-in-law and applicant no. 2 is sister-in-law of the daughter of opposite party no. 2. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and has submitted that these facts have also been taken cognizance by the Apex Court whereby the Court stated that there are large number of false and frivolous cases lodged against the entire family members of the husband and submitted that there are general allegations against the applicants and therefore giving benefit of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) the proceedings against the applicants be quashed.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) the Apex Court has clearly stated that charge sheet and proceedings can be quashed only when no case is made out against the applicants and relied upon para 25 of the said judgment.
"25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution 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 emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the 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 process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes 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 overimplication 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 domenstc bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding."
5. After arguing the matter up to some length, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to press this application on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that applicant may be permitted to move discharge application through counsel and suitable directions may be issued for expeditious disposal of the same.
6. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in grant of aforesaid prayer.
7. In view of above, it is provided that applicant is permitted to move his discharge application through counsel within four weeks' from today and in case any such application is being filed, same shall be heard and decided expeditiously after hearing the parties, in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order.
8. Till the aforesaid period of four weeks' and during pendency of discharge application, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
9. In case of failure on the part of applicant in moving the discharge application within the aforesaid period, he will not be entitled to the benefit of this order.
10. With above directions this application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.1.2021/A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
