Allahabad High Court
Manoj And Another vs State Of U.P And Another on 7 April, 2022
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23080 of 2021
Applicant :- Manoj And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Yadav,Mahendra Pratap
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.
Present petition has been preferred to quash the Cognizance Order dated 27.03.2017 and Charge Sheet Dated 26.12.2016 in Case Crime No. 0135 of 2016 under Sections 498 A, 323, 504 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bhaghpat and all consequential proceedings of Criminal Case No 1447 of 2017 now new number 272 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 0135 of 2016 under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District baghpat, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), FTC, Baghpat may be set aside.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicant nos. 1 and 2 are the Jeth and Jethani of the respondent no. 2 respectively and they have falsely been implicated in the present case by the respondent no. 2. It is further submitted that there are general allegation against the applicants and no specific role has been assigned to them either in the FIR or in the statements and under these circumstances, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 117.
On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that from the FIR and the statements of the respondent no. 2, the offence is made out against the applicants. It is further submitted that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial by adducing evidence and, therefore, the petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima-facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843, TGN Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2011 2 SCC 772 and lastly Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in 2019 SCC Online 948.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record as well as considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, prima-facie, it is found that the allegations against the applicants are not general in nature and same can only be determined by the trial court that whether the allegations are general or specific in nature by adducing evidence; it is also not the case where the applicants were living separately from the respondent no. 2. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot scrutinize the evidence and the same will be seen by the trial court during trial.
In view of above, this petition is devoid of merit and hence no interference is required.
Petition under Section 482 is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.4.2022
Ashish
