Allahabad High Court
Arun Pratap Singh Chauhan vs State Of U.P And Another on 13 January, 2021
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19920 of 2020
Applicant :- Arun Pratap Singh Chauhan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Saral Singh,Satyendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the 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 no.454/2020, dated 09.09.2020 and cognizance/summoning order dated 25.09.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.1356 of 2020, (State Vs. Arun Pratap and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 338 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 306 I.P.C. as also under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Sikandra, District-Agra, pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegation made in the F.I.R., the marriage of sister of opposite party no.2, namely, Doli was solemnized with applicant in the year 2013 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals, wherein the opposite party no.2 gave dowry as per his capacity. However, after sometime, the applicant started mentally and physically harassing the sister of opposite party no.2 for demanding additional dowry demand of car. On 25.06.2020 at about 06:10 O'clock, the opposite party no.2 was informed by the applicant that he sister, Doli hanged herself and she was taken to emergency, therefore, the present F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant. Subsequently, after investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant under Section 498A, 306 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act and on the basis of which, the concerned court below has taken cognizance on 25.09.2020 in a mechanical and routine manner.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant 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 applicant by submitting that at this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
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 laslty
(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. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 13.1.2021
JK Yadav
