Allahabad High Court
Sandeep And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 May, 2022
Bench: Umesh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30128 of 2021
Applicant :- Sandeep And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet no. 60 of 2020, dated 09.12.2020 and summoning order dated 29.06.2021 as well as the entire proceeding of Case No. 4825 of 2021 (State vs. Sandeep and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0042 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, police station- Mahila Thana, District- Firozabad, pending before the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate F.T.C.-2, Firozabad.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant no.1 is the husband of opposite party no.2 and applicant nos. 2 to 4 are the family members of applicant no.1 and the allegation levelled against them, are general and vague with no specificity. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) ADJ 464.
Similarly in Taramani Parakh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2015) 11 SCC 260 the Apex Court again struck a note not to indiscriminately quash the proceedings against the relatives of the husband in a matrimonial dispute on the strength of Geeta Mehrotra (supra). Paragraph-12 of Taramani Parakh (supra) reads as under:-
"12. In Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.2055 of 2014 decided on 6.9.2014), it was observed: "9. We have gone through the FIR and the criminal complaint. In the FIR, the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have been named without attributing any specific role to them. The relationship of the appellants with the husband of the complainant is distant. In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2000) 5 SCC 207], it was observed:-
"5.....A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case."
The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role.
The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are well known. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the criminal proceedings are abuse of Court's process, quashing jurisdiction can be exercised. Reference may be made to K. Ramakrsihna and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. [(2000) 8 SCC 547], Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749], State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [(1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335] and Asmathunnisa vs. State of A.P."
In view of the above, the matter requires consideration in respect of the applicant nos.2 to 4.
Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A.
Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.
Opposite party no.2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Learned A.G.A. may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Rejoinder affidavit may thereafter be filed within two weeks.
List on 28.7.2022 as fresh before appropriate Bench.
Till the next date of listing, trial against the applicant nos.2 to 4 shall be kept in abeyance, in the aforesaid case.
However, the prayer in respect of the applicant no.1 (husband) is refused. It is directed that if applicant no. 1 appears and surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided, in view of the settled law laid by the Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2016 (7) ADJ 151.
This application at the behest of applicant no.1 stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.5.2022
S.Verma
