Allahabad High Court
Vipin Chaudhary And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 June, 2021
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5107 of 2021
Applicant :- Vipin Chaudhary And 6 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Tyagi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has requested that this being a matrimonial matter, there are all chances of parties settling the dispute. The summoning order dated 22.12.2020 bear date 18.01.2021. In this pandemic we are not aware whether the learned judge before the court where matter is pending has after the summoning order issued any further orders or not.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that his clients may appear before the court below within a period of three weeks from today and would apply for anticipatory bail or regular bail. It is stated that the petitioner no. 7 Deepak is already on bail.
Petitioner No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are ladies and petitioner no. 2 who is father in law shall not be dealt with coercively till they appear or seek anticipatory bail which shall be filed within three weeks from today, yet not filed. The petitioner No. 1 Vipin Chaudhary may also seek bail.
This Court disposes of this matter at this stage.
I had shown indulgence as most of the petitioners are ladies. The learned Advocate after the order is passed conveyed that he may be permitted to argue on merits as according to him this was a case where the proceedings are required to be quashed and the summoning order was also bad.
It is submitted that the ground urged reconsidered.
The petitioners had earlier moved what is known as a writ petition under article 226 of Constitution of India which came to be dismissed. The question is can a subsequent 482 petition lie once the High Court in a disciplinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution refused to quash the F.I.R. Unfortunately, the Court granted the indulgence till the investigation was over. However, this practice has been recently deprecated by the Apex Court. While going through the factual data "...petitioner no. 1 is the husband of respondent no. 4 and their marriage was solemnized on 04.05.2018. Thereafter, some dispute arose between the parties on account of which the present F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent no. 4 roping the entire family of her husband/petitioner no. 1 containing absolutely false and frivolus allegations against them, hence, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed." this was the precise argument in the petition which has not met favour with the Division Bench.
The submissions are akin to the said arguments and therefore, it cannot be said that the F.I.R. does not disclose any of the ingredients for which the petitioner are to be tried. The submission that neighbours were not supporting the prosecution. These are all questions which would arise at the time of trial and when the evidence is recorded. On the basis of the submissions made, it cannot be said that no case is made out against the petitioners. The subsequent quashment petition under 482 cannot be entertained even on merits.
I am even fortified in my view by the decision rendered in State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others, (2017) 2 SCC 799. There are serious allegations against all the persons. Therefore it cannot be said that this is a case which requires to be entertained. The Court as per the contours of 482 cannot grant indirectly which it cannot be granted directly. I am even fortified in my view by the decision rendered in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2021 SC 1918.
At the stage of question, an F.I.R. or complaint the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the probability reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. Of course he has been pointed out in Bhajan Lal cases, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, an F.I.R. or a complaint may be quashed if the allegations made therein are so absurd and inheretently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused but the High Court has not recorded such a finding, obviously because on the allegation in the F.I.R. it was not possible to do so. Therefore, it must be held that the High Court has committed a gross error of law in quashing the F.I.R. and the complaint. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the petition filed by the respondent in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
The judgment in Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 10 SCC 663 is also applicable to the facts of this case. The scope of enquiry and investigation under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very limited and the material placed on record is not such which will permit this Court to quash the proceedings.
Thus, the petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.6.2021
VPS
