Allahabad High Court
Yogesh Kumar And 4 Others 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. - 690 of 2021
Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Som Veer
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Som Veer, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 18th July, 2020, summoning order dated 15th September, 2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 426 of 2020 (State Vs. Yogesh & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 264 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. as also under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Khair, District-Aligarh, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant no. 1 is the husband, whereas the applicant nos. 2 to 5 are Jeth, Nanad, mother-in-law and Jethani of opposite party no.2 respectively. It is further submitted that except the husband of opposite party no.2 i.e. applicant no.1 herein, the allegations levelled against the other applicants are general and vague with no specificity. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464.
Similarly in Taramani Parakh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260, the Apex Court again struck a note not to indiscriminately quash the proceedings against the relatives of the husband in a matrimonial dispute on the strength of Geeta Mehrotra (supra). Paragraph-12 of Taramani Parakh (supra) reads as under:-
"12. In Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.2055 of 2014 decided on 6.9.2014), it was observed: "9. We have gone through the FIR and the criminal complaint. In the FIR, the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have been named without attributing any specific role to them. The relationship of the appellants with the husband of the complainant is distant. In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2000) 5 SCC 207], it was observed:-
"5.....A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case."
The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role.
The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are well known. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the criminal proceedings are abuse of Court's process, quashing jurisdiction can be exercised. Reference may be made to K. Ramakrsihna and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. [(2000) 8 SCC 547], Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749], State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [(1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335] and Asmathunnisa vs. State of A.P."
In view of the above, the matter requires consideration in respect of the applicant nos. 2 to 5. Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A.
Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.
Opposite party no.2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Learned A.G.A. may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Rejoinder affidavit may thereafter be filed within two weeks.
List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Bench.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant nos. 2 to 5 in the aforesaid complaint case.
However, the prayer in respect of the applicant no.1 is refused. It is directed that if applicant no. 1 appears and surrenders before the court below within one month from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the settled law laid by the Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2016 (7) ADJ 151.
For a period of one month from today or till the applicant no.1 surrenders and applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. However, in case, he does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
Accordingly, the present application at the behest of applicant no.1, is finally disposed of.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Order Date :- 13.1.2021
Sushil/-
