Allahabad High Court
Sanjay @ Lal Sahab And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 September, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18036 of 2022
Applicant :- Sanjay @ Lal Sahab And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjai Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 21.07.2019, cognizance order dated 04.08.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bansi, Siddharth Nagar as well as Bailable warrant dated 12.01.2022 and 21.04.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bansi, Siddharth Nagar and the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.1237 of 2020 (State Vs. Sanjay @ Lal Sahab and others), arising out of Case Crime No.53 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Golhaura, District-Siddharth Nagar, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bansi, Siddharth Nagar.
The F.I.R. has been lodged with the allegations of harassment for non fulfillment of additional dowry demand. After investigations, charge sheet has submitted.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that opposite party no.2 is not wife of applicant no.1 as she claims to have performed marriage with applicant no.1 in the year 2012 whereas the applicant was already married in the year 2008. He further submits that perusal of the records goes to show that no offence under the relevant section is made out against the applicants. An application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved, in which, direction was issued for lodging of the case only after investigating the matter. The present F.I.R. has been lodged and charge sheet has been submitted, without complying with the directions as passed by the concerned Court in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. wherein only statements of few persons have been recorded, therefore, the proceedings against the applicants would amount to abuse of process of law and the same may be set aside.
Learned A.G.A. submits that all contentions raised by counsel for the applicants is related to dispute questions of fact, which cannot be seen here. He further submits that records go to show that the opposite party no.2 had already moved an application in the year 2018, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and there was ample time for applicant no.1 to move an application or file a case disputing his marriage with opposite party no.2. The contentions cannot be raised at this stage, whether applicant no.1 has performed with the opposite party no.2 or not.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
This Court finds that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:
(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866,
(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335,
(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,
(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122,
(v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682,
(vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454,
(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and laslty,
(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
In view of the above, the aforesaid prayer as made by learned counsel for the applicant for setting aside the orders impugned as well as proceeding of the aforesaid case are refused and the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 19.9.2022
Rahul.
