Manju Devi And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 6830 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 83
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6755 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Manju Devi And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Kartikeya Bhargava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. The present application is preferred by applicants for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the cognizance/ summoning order dated 08.10.2020; charge sheet No. 265 of 2020 dated 29.06.2020 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7505 of 2020 (State vs. Ramesh Chandra and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1045 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 313, 498A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sikandara, District Agra, pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

2. Applicant-1, Manju Devi is mother-in-law; Applicant-2, Lakshmi Sharma is wife of elder brother-in-law; Applicant-3, Hemant Sharma is the elder brother-in-law of the daughter of Complainant and Applicant-4, Digambar is a Doctor.

3. FIR No. 1045 dated 18.12.2019 was lodged by Pawan Kumar Dixit, father of victim, who got married to Jai Krishna Sharma, who is also one of the accused on 09.12.2016. At the time of marriage a sum of Rs. 30 lacs and a Mahindra XUV 500 Car (having cost of Rs. 16 lacs) was presented to the family of husband. Additionally a cheque of Rs. 3 lacs was also given alongwith other gifts like furniture and jewellery. Despite such a huge dowry the accused persons have repeatedly asked more dowry and for that they committed cruelty with victim also. Even her pregnancy was terminated forcefully, which led to medical complications, her kidney was damaged, she was put under medication and she has to undertake dialysis on regular basis. On 20.08.2019 the accused persons left victim at the house of Complainant. It was submitted that applicants and other co-accused have committed offences under Sections 323, 504, 313, 498A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The accused persons have earlier preferred a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1612 of 2020 for quashing of FIR. The Division Bench of this Court had declined to quash the FIR, however except husband of victim, all the petitioners therein, were granted protection from arrest till submission of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. After investigation the charge sheet has been filed against all the accused for the offences referred above and Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra has taken cognizance of the offences vide order dated 08.10.2020. The charge sheet, cognizance order and entire criminal proceedings are under challenge before this Court.

5. Sri Kartikeya Bhargava, learned counsel for applicants appearing through Video Conferencing, submits that Magistrate concerned in a very routine and casual manner, without application of mind and without appreciation of evidence, has issued cognizance order and summons the applicants to face trial. Applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of a fabricated, false and concocted story. Learned counsel also contended that on the basis of contents of FIR and statements recorded during investigation even prima facie no case is made out under Section 313 IPC, as there is not a single evidence to connect the applicant with said offence. There is no evidence against Applicant-4 (a Doctor) that he administered any injection which has side effect of causing damage to kidney of the victim. It was tried to point out that victim has a kidney problem even before marriage.

6. It is further submitted that the Mahindra XUV 500 Car was purchased by husband of victim after taking loan from the Bank and it was not gifted during marriage. The applicants and husband of victim had got treated the victim in various hospitals and paid substantial amount. However, the documents in support of this contention is not on record as they are not available. Applicants-1 to 3 are related to victim as mother-in-law; wife of elder brother-in-law and elder brother-in-law, respectively, who are neither concerned with demand of dowry nor they are beneficiary of it but still they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant-3 is residing in Agra separately from the family of victim. Applicant-4 has been named in the FIR just because he is a family friend of father-in-law of the victim.

7. Learned counsel for applicants has placed great emphasis on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and relied on para 24 of the said judgment to submit that usually in matrimonial cases there is over implication by involving the entire family of accused at the instance of Complainant and if FIR, as it stand, does not disclose specific allegation against accused, moreso 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 FIR to undergo and face trial.

8. On the basis of above submission, learned counsel for applicants prayed that this Court may please to invoke its inherent jurisdiction and to allow the prayers made in this application.

9. Learned A.G.A. appearing for State has opposed the submissions and prayers made in the application. He urged that the Division Bench of this Court has not found any merit in the petition filed for quashing of FIR, therefore, the judgment in Geeta Mehrotra and another (supra) is not applicable in the present case. During investigation statements of victim, father of victim, mother of victim and grand father of victim were recorded. These witnesses have specifically stated in their respective statements that substantial dowry was presented at the time of marriage to the family of husband of victim. All the accused persons have subjected the victim to cruelty. They even assaulted her. Statements are also consistent that the pregnancy of victim was forcefully terminated and due to medical complications she has suffered disease of kidney which ultimately leads the victim to undergo regular dialysis. Even during mediation the accused persons refused to take back the victim. The Medical reports annexed alongwith this application also indicates that victim was suffering disease of kidney and she repeatedly underwent dialysis. Learned A.G.A. lastly submitted that on the basis of evidence available on record prima facie a case is made out against applicants and facts and circumstances of present case does not warrant any interference of this Court under inherent jurisdiction.

10. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

11. Law on Inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. could be explained in following words :-

I) Inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., an extraordinary power, is with purpose and object of advancement of justice, which is to be exercised 'to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C.', or 'to prevent abuse of process of any court', or 'to secure ends of justice', making arena of the power very wide, yet it is to be exercised sparingly, with great care and circumspection, that too in the rarest of rare cases.

II) It is no more res integra that exercise of inherent power could be invoked to even quash a criminal proceeding/First Information Report/ Complaint/ chargesheet, but only when allegation made therein does not constitute ingredients of the offence/offences and /or are frivolous and vexatious on their face, without looking into defence evidence, however such power should not be exercised to stifle or cause sudden death of any legitimate prosecution. Inherent power does not empower the High Court to assume role of a trial court and to embark upon an enquiry as to reliability of evidence and sustainability of accusation, specifically in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, similarly quashing of criminal proceedings by assessing the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. at initial stage, scuttling is nothing but scuttling a full fledged trial.

III) There can not be any straight jacket formula for regulating the inherent power of this Court, however the Supreme Court has summarised and illustrated some categories though not exhaustive in which this power could be exercised in catena of judgments. Some of them are State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal: 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd Vs. Mohd Sharaful Haque: (2005) 1 SCC 122, Ahmed Ali Quarashi and Anr Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh: 2020 SCC Online SC 107, Joseph Salvaraja A v. State of Gujarat (2011) 7 SCC 59, Sushil Sethi and another Vs The State of Arunachal Pradesh and others (2020) 3 SCC, 240, Priti Saraf and Anr Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr : 2021 SCC Online SC 206 and they are: allegations made in FIR/complaint/, if are taken at their face value and accepted do not prima facie constitute any offence or are so absurd and inherently improbable to make out any case or no cognizable offence is disclosed against the accused, criminal proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive and with a view to spite the accused due to private and personal grudge, or where there is a specific legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or in the concerned Act for institution and continuance of the proceedings or when dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, further courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out.

IV) In Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra : (2019) 14 SCC 350, the Apex Court has laid emphasis on the principles laid down in two of its previous judgements namely, State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa: 2015 (3) SCC 424 and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.: (2006) 6 SCC 736 and held that quashing of criminal proceedings is called for only when the complaint does not disclose any offence, or the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive and further clarified that defences available during a trial and facts/aspects whose establishment during the trial may lead to acquittal cannot form the basis of quashing a criminal complaint. The criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature, if the ingredients of the alleged offence are prima facie made out in the complaint.

12. It is apparent that prayer for quashing of FIR was rejected by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.02.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1612 of 2020. I have gone through the statements recorded during investigation, which are on record. All the witnesses have specifically stated that the applicants and co-accused have repeatedly demanded dowry from victim and also assaulted her. They have harassed the victim with a view to meet their unlawful demand for more dowry items and money. Witnesses are also consistent that applicants with the help of Doctor (Applicant-4, Digamber) caused miscarriage without the consent of victim. The material on record further indicates that victim is under treatment for her kidney problem and she also required to go for dialysis repeatedly. Prima facie ingredients of aforesaid offences are made out. Judgment passed in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another (supra) is not applicable in facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned counsel for applicants does not make out any case warranting interference under inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

13. As observed in preceding paragraphs inherent power does not empower the High Court to assume role of a Trial Court and to embark upon an enquiry as to reliability of evidence. The applicants have failed to make out a case that criminal proceedings were maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. There is no error in the cognizance order, therefore, prayers made in this application are rejected.

14. Accordingly, this application is dismissed without any costs.

Order Date :- 30.06.2021

AK