Allahabad High Court
Abdul Razzaq And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 May, 2022
Bench: Umesh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24505 of 2016
Applicant :- Abdul Razzaq And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Sharma,Mohammad Arshad Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Syed Faiz Hasan,Syed Faiz Hasnain
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. appearing for State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash charge sheet dated 22.04.2016 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 555 of 2016 (State Versus Abdul Razzaq and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 22 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 313, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Mahila Thana, District-Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar (Amroha).
The brief facts giving rise to present application are that a first information report dated 18.03.2016 was lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicants and her husband. Against F.I.R. the applicants including husband of opposite party no.2 approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition in which this Court stayed arrest of the applicants except husband of opposite party no.2. The police without conducting proper investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the applicants which is under challenge in this application.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that a settlement between husband and wife has been made in which the opposite party no.2 was ready to live with her husband. In this regard, an application along with affidavit has been filed on 27.7.2016 and a request was made to expunge the case on the basis of settlement. However, learned Magistrate without applying his judicial mind took cognizance on the charge-sheet.It is submitted that the applicants are in-laws of the opposite party no.2 and offences as alleged under Sections 498-A, 313, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not made out against the applicants. It is also argued that role assigned to all the applicants is general in nature. No specific role has been attributed to the applicants either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the witnesses.The criminal proceeding initiated against the applicants is nothing but an abuse of process law and court, hence entire criminal proceeding initiated against the applicants, who are family members of husband of opposite party no.2, is liable to be quashed.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed matrimonial dispute in detail in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs The State Of Bihar decided on 8 February, 2022 [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 195 OF 2022 (arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No. 6545 OF 2020)] wherein series of judgement have been mentioned. In the case of K. Subba Rao Vs. The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452 , it was also observed that:-
"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."
The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498 A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case as the applicants are family members of husband of opposite party no.2 and living separately.
In view of the above, the proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby, quashed.
Order Date :- 6.5.2022
MN/-
