Allahabad High Court
Nagendra Verma @ Nagendra Kumar ... 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. - 5089 of 2021
Applicant :- Nagendra Verma @ Nagendra Kumar Verma And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- K.K.Rao,Piyush Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
The petitioner's counsel did not join the link.
The husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law have challenged the proceedings with the following prayer:
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and quash the entire criminal proceedings in Case No. 3584 of 2020 (State of Nagendra Verma and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0276 of 2019 under Sections 498A, 323 & 506 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of D. P. Act, Police Station Turka Patti, District Kushi Nagar pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasya, Kushi Nagar."
I have perused the records annexed, it is said that the F.I.R. under Section 498A, 323 & 506 of Indian Penal Code read with 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, is not at all made out.
Learned A.G.A. Sri Bhaiya Ghanshyam Singh had also taken this Court through the record.
The discharge summary of the injured is also on record. Prima-facie can it be said that the contours of 482 Cr.P.C. are satisfied so as to quash the F.I.R., the answer is no. 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 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 it 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.
The facts go to show that there are injury marks and the incident is not such which would permit this Court to quash the proceedings and also quash the summoning. The so called many judgments of the Apex Court cited by the petitioner will also not come to the aid of the petitioner.
The petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
However, if the accused appears before the court below and seeks bail, the court below shall consider the case on merits for grant the bail.
Order Date :- 28.6.2021/VPS
