Allahabad High Court
Amit Singh And 2 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Judgment reserved on 21.09.2022
Judgment delivered on 20.10.2022
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34515 of 2019
Applicant :- Amit Singh And 2 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prem Shankar,S.M.Faraz I. Kazmi
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. The applicant No.1 is husband of complainant whereas applicant No. 2 and 3 are father in law and mother in law respectively of the complainant/opposite party No.2.
2. Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that marriage was solemnized between applicant no.1 and opposite party No.2 on 24.05.2014. It was alleged by the opposite party No.2 that though initially it was agreed to solemnize marriage between complainant and applicant no. 1 without dowry but at the time of marriage, applicants insisted and pressurized, father of opposite party No.2 who succumbed to their demand and paid Rs. 20 lakh and a plot of about 150 sq. mtrs. and only thereafrter, marriage could be solemnized.
3. The opposite party No.2, further alleged that Rs. 2 lakh was given to the applicant No.1 when he went to London and thereafter they regularly pressurized her. On 21.05.2015, the opposite party No.2 went to London, however, she was harassed there also. A complaint was also filed against her husband.
4. Learned counsel submitted that said complaint was rejected due to no evidence and when his wife came back to India she lodged FIR.
5. Learned counsel also pointed out that Complaint Case No. 4216 of 2015 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. were interfered by this Court so much as proceedings were directed to proceed only against applicant No.1 and so far as other accused persons were concerned, it was quashed.
6. Learned counsel submitted that to support the allegation that Rs. 20 lakh was paid, there was no document on record. After lodging of F.I.R. against the applicants and others, opposite party No.2 has married to another person and living a life of an adultery which was also observed in the proceedings carried up to this Court on behalf of applicant No.1 in regard to the proceedings initiated by his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He further placed reliance upon a judgment passed by this Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 that in case of omnibus allegations, without attributing any specific role, the criminal proceedings can be quashed specifically where there are matrimonial dispute.
7. Above referred submissions were vehemently opposed by Sri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A.-I and Sri S.M. Faraz I. Kazmi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and submitted that there are specific allegations against the applicants and others that they forced the father of opposite party No.2 to pay a dowry of Rs. 20 lakh at the time of marriage as well as a plot of 150 sq. mts. Later on they were forced to pay Rs. 1 lakh when the applicant No.1 went to London and meanwhile, they continued to commit cruelty even when she resided with her husband i.e. applicant No.1 at London. There are specific allegations against the applicants, therefore, this application is liable to be rejected.
8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
9. In the present case, the dispute is arising out of matrimonial issues. It appears that there are multiple allegations by the complainant against her husband and her in- laws as well. There are allegations that parents of complainant were forced to pay Rs. 20 lakh and a plot at the time of marriage and later on they paid Rs. 1 lakh. Further, case of complainant that she was harassed not only by her in-laws in India but also by her husband at London where proceedings were also initiated against him.
10. I find merit in the argument of learned counsel for applicant that certain allegations mentioned in F.I.R. are contrary to the records, such as, allegations made against the applicant No.1 by his wife at London regarding the occurrence took place at London which was rejected being not supported by an evidence and document in this regard are placed on record.
11. So far as another issue of adultery is concerned, the Court cannot go into the said allegations at this stage.
12. Now the matter remains whether the allegations made in the F.I.R. as well as statements recorded during investigation are omnibus against the applicant no. 1 and his father and mother so much as that case may fall under the judgment of Kahkashan Kausar (supra), the Court proceeds to peruse the statement recorded during investigation with the caveat that while considering the prayer for quashing under the exercise of inherent jurisdiction, the Court cannot conduct a mini trial (see State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs. Akhil Sharda and others, (2022) SCC Online SC 820).
13. In the F.I.R. itself, the allegations starts from marriage so much as that there are allegations that the parents of opposite party No.2 was pressurized at the time of marriage which forced them to pay Rs. 20 lakh in cash and a plot of 150 sq. mts. in the name of applicant No.1 which was corroborated in the statement of complainant also and further there are allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty by the parents of applicant No.1 even in his absence when he went to London. Therefore, even the part of allegations at London may not be found to be prima facie true, still there are specific allegations against the applicant No.1 and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. father and mother in law of complainant that they demanded dowry at the time to marriage as well as they continuously committed cruelty on the complainant with regard to demand of dowry. Only because the complainant has allegedly remarried, does not render the allegations to be false.
14. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the allegations are omnibus in nature, contrary to it they are specific against her husband and even against her father-in-law and mother-in-law.
15. Therefore, I do not find any reason to cause interference with the criminal proceedings against the applicants. Accordingly, application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- October 20, 2022
Nirmal Sinha/AK
