Allahabad High Court
Suresh Chauhan And 2 Others vs State Of U.P And Another on 16 December, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28109 of 2022
Applicant :- Suresh Chauhan And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Anas Raza,Avnish Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Avnish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A.
By means of this application, applicants have prayed for quashing the Charge-sheet dated 18.3.2021, cognizance order dated 29.6.2021 as well as the prosecution of the applicants under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Dowry Prohibition Act which is pending in Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Crime Against Women), Meerut as Case No.10009 of 2021 (arising out of Crime No.102 of 2020), State Vs. Suresh Chauhan & Others.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that F.I.R. was lodged by victim herself against seven named persons. However, after investigation, charge-sheet was filed only against applicants who are three in numbers (husband of the complainant, her father-in-law and mother-in-law). Counsel for applicants further submits that F.I.R. was lodged at Meerut, whereas, alleged occurrence took place either at Baghpat or at Delhi, therefore the Court at Meerut has no territorial jurisdiction.
Aforesaid submission of counsel for applicants sans merit since the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is a continuance offence and it continued when the victim was forced to stay with her parents at Meerut, therefore, definitely part of cause of action arose at Meerut.
Other submissions of learned counsel for applicants is that there are omnibus allegations against applicant nos.2 and 3 i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant in the F.I.R. regarding demand of dowry and are not supported by statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as independent witnesses have specifically stated that applicant nos.2 and 3 were normally residing at Baghpat and they have no day to day interference in married life of applicant no.1 and the complainant. The allegations are omnibus to the extent that they were similar to all accused persons named in the F.I.R. without any specific allegations against applicant nos.2 and 3. Counsel for applicants has placed reliance upon judgment of Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kauser @ Sonam and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162 that in case of omnibus allegations, criminal proceedings can be quashed.
In order to consider the above submissions, I have carefully perused F.I.R. and the statements recorded during investigation. Statement of victim/complainant is specific that her inlaws were not satisfied with dowry during marriage and they wanted that complainant has right in parental property be given to her but it was refused. She was not allowed to enter the house when she returned back after giving competitive examination. This version is corroborated by the statement of complainant's father, mother as well as independent witnesses also.
So far as statement of independent witnesses Sunder Chauhan and Vipin Chauhan are concerned, they have not denied that her inlaws visited complainant's house as well as they are hearsay evidence. The Court cannot ignore statement of proposed witnesses in the charge-sheet and who have supported case of the victim.
At the stage of consideration of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the quashing of charge-sheet, Court has to scrutinise as to whether on basis of material available, a prima-facie case is made out against the accused persons or not. Court cannot conduct a mini trial to extent that whether on basis of material available, accused persons can be convicted or not.
As discussed above, victim, her father, mother and some of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case that applicants including her inlaws have specifically demanded dowry in regard to share of complainant in ancestral property, victim was not allowed to enter her house. In these circumstances, when there are specific allegations against applicants, allowing this application by exercising inherent powers of this Court will amount to cause sudden death of criminal proceedings, which is not permissible under law.
Accordingly, this application is rejected.
Order Date :- 16.12.2022
SB
(Serial No.44 out of 282 fresh cases.)
