Janki Sharma Trivedi @ Aman And 7 ... vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 11033 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR					   
 
Reserved on 08.02.2023 
 
Delivered on 13.04.2023
 
Court No. - 53
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13185 of 2019
 
Applicant :- Janki Sharan Trivedi @ Aman and 7 others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

1. Heard Sri Harikant Shukla, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. From perusal of the records, it transpires that opposite party no.2 is served personally but he has not come forward to oppose this application and neither opposite party no.2 nor the State have filed any objection/counter affidavit.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved to quash the proceeding of Case No.2119 of 2008 (CNR No.UPMB040002302008, State Vs. Janaki Sharan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.2460 of 2008, under Section 420 I.P.C. and Section ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Mahoba, District Mahoba pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba and also to quash non-bailable warrant issued against the applicants.

4. In brief, facts of the case are that opposite party no.2 lodged an F.I.R. on 16.07.2008 against the applicants that marriage of Kumari Anjana niece of opposite party no.2 had been fixed with applicant no.1, ring ceremony etc. were performed and date of marriage was fixed to solemnise marriage on 08.07.2008, but the applicants refused to perform the marriage for want of demand of dowry. The applicants never demanded the dowry. The present F.I.R was the result of malice. The F.I.R was challenged in the High Court through Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.14500 of 2008 (Km. Pooja and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), and the arrest of the applicants had been stayed vide order dated 14.08.2008 and vide order dated 20.08.2008 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.14929 of 2008 (Smt. Mithilesh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others). During the course of investigation the investigating officer (I.O.) recorded statement of informant Narendra Kumar Mishra and statements of hearsay witnesses Smt. Gauri Dulhaina (mother of informant) and Sushila Devi (wife of the informant) and also of one Deoki Nandan and other family members of the informant. All the witnesses have supported the prosecution story and after recording evidence, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet under Section 420 I.P.C and Section ¾ D.P. Act.

5. The concerned learned Magistrate took cognizance without passing detailed and reasoned order on 21.09.2008. Pursuant to the charge-sheet, process have been issued, neither any summon nor any notice has been served upon applicants. Later on, bailable warrant has been issued in February, 2019. It is true that the marriage of Kumar Anjana D/o Mahendra Kumar was proposed with applicant no.1, Janaki Sharan but later on, the applicants came to know that her family members are of criminal background, therefore, applicant no.1 refused to marry with Anjana. After refusal by applicant no.1, they exerted much pressure for marriage, rather they threatened to kill the applicant no.1 and just to harass the applicants lodged the F.I.R. in question.

6. Being aggrieved with false prosecution by opposite party no.2 and submission of charge-sheet, applicant no.1 moved an application to D.G.P. (Complaint), Government of U.P. and prayed for fair investigation, in which he also mentioned the criminal history of opposite party no.2 and his family. Applicant no.4 is the married daughter of applicant no.2 and applicant no. 5 is unmarried daughter of applicant no.2. Applicant no.6 belongs to same village, but she has no relation with the family of applicant nos.1 and 2, applicant nos.7 and 8 belong to other villages, they are relatives of applicant nos.1 and 2. From perusal of entire evidences it shows that applicants have not committed any cheating/fraud. Therefore, no offence under Section 420 I.P.C is made out against them. Applicant Kamla Kant is villager, applicant Uma Kant is maternal uncle and applicant Neeraj is cousin, son of aunt (mausi) of applicant no.1, thus they are not the family members of applicant no.1, therefore, no offence under the D.P. Act is made out against them.

7. Dowry means "a demand made by parents of either party to a marriage by any other person, to either party to marriage or to any other person at or before or after marriage as consideration of marriage of said parties". In this case opposite party no.2 has implicated the entire family, villagers and other relatives of Janaki Sharan, thus the allegations contained in the F.I.R. do not come within the purview of Section ¾ D.P. Act, 1961.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite clear that no prima facie offence either under Section 420 I.P.C. or under Section ¾ D.P. Act is made out. No useful purpose would be served to continue with trial on the basis of material available in the charge-sheet.

9. The applicants are innocent, committed no offence and F.I.R. is the result of malice of opposite party no.2, and the prosecution is void ab initio, hence the application be allowed and the entire proceedings of the impugned criminal case be quashed.

10. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the applicants has argued that at present this application remains only in respect of applicant nos.4 and 5 and rest of the applicants have appeared in the trial court and they are ready to face the trial.

11. As per the F.I.R. and the prosecution version marriage between the niece of the informant Kumari Anjana had been settled with Janki Sharan @ Aman, applicant no.1 son of applicant nos.2 and 3 but after godbharai and before the tilak ceremony, applicant no.2, Ram Bihari Trivedi sent a letter dated 14.06.2008 demanding a santro car and additional dowry and later on he also sent a notice dated 19.06.2008 for not being ready to solemnise the marriage of his son i.e. applicant no.1 with Anjana, niece of the informant.

12. The prosecution case is that the reason behind the denial was that applicant no.1, Janki Sharan had been successful in getting entrance in MBA, hence the applicants had become greedy and wanted more and more dowry. According to the prosecution applicant no.1 was provided a golden ring and rest of the applicants were also provided cash and clothes as a mark of honour. The informant was continuously meeting with the applicants to fix the date of marriage but they troubled him for an additional demand of car and valuable things.

13. According to the prosecution, all the applicants are jointly and severely liable for the offence about which charge sheet has been submitted against all the accused persons.

14. In spite of service upon the informant/opposite party no.2 neither he appeared nor filed any counter affidavit nor contested the application. However, the application has been opposed by the learned AGA on behalf of the State. During course of argument learned counsel for the applicants states that he does not press the application on behalf of the applicants except applicant nos.4 and 5. Hence, the role of the applicant nos.4 and 5 has to be scrutinized and it has to be seen as to whether the criminal proceedings going on against applicant nos.4 and 5 is the abuse of process of Court and whether it is necessary to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure and to secure the ends of justice, this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against applicant nos.4 and 5. In this regard Section 482 CrPC has to be seen which reads as under:-

"482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

15. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied on the judgment Kahkashan Kaussar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 117, in which, niece, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law were made accused and general allegations were levelled against them.

16. The Apex Court relying on the citation Lalita Kumari Vs State of U.P. and others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 and Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others, (2018) 10 SCC 443 quashed the criminal proceedings.

17. The Apex Court held that now-a-days, a tendency is increased to apply provisions such as Section 498-A I.P.C. as instrument to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. The Apex Court cited the previous judgments of Rajesh Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 10 SCC 472; Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667; Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 and K. Subba Rao Vs. State of Telengana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 and observed that false implication by way of general and omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of process of law. Therefore, the Apex Court by way of this judgment has warned the courts from proceedings against the relatives and in-laws of the husband if no prima facie case is made out against them.

18. The Apex Court found that no specific and distinct allegations had been made against either of appellants. They had not been attributed any specific role in the cited case; the order of High Court of Patna and the F.I.R. was set aside.

19. It was held in Pawan Kumar Bhalotiya Vs. West Bengal, 2005 CrLJ 1810 (SC) that where the F.I.R. has been lodged only to harass the applicants, the criminal proceedings could be quashed exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

20. In Premlata Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 69, it has been held that if the High Court observed that if no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings, the High Court can quash the proceedings of the court below.

21. In view of the judgment pronounced by the Apex Court, the role of applicant nos.4 and 5 has been deeply scrutinized by this Court and thereafter this Court comes to the conclusion that being family members they had participated in the ongoing ceremony but neither they had any role in fixing the marriage between Anjana and applicant no.1 nor they had demanded any dowry nor they had instigated rest of the applicants for making further demand of dowry nor there is any proof of conspiracy by them in this regard nor they were in any way beneficiary to the alleged demand of dowry, simply because they are the real sisters of applicant no.1, they were bound to accompany and participate in related function with her brother and parents. There is general and omnibus allegations against them. There is no specific allegation against applicant nos.4 and 5. On this score learned counsel for the applicants has relied on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. State of Bihar, 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 117 and Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (10) ADJ 464 which are fully applicable to this case in support of both the applicants.

22. On the basis of above discussion, this Court is of the view that the impugned criminal proceedings against applicant nos.4 and 5 is nothing but misuse and abuse of legal process and to secure the ends of justice, it is mandatory to exercise the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC and to quash the entire criminal proceedings with regard to applicant nos.4 and 5, Puja and Meenu. Hence, this application is liable to be allowed accordingly.

ORDER

23. This application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed in respect of applicant nos.1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 on account of not pressing the petition by the learned counsel for the applicants.

24. This application is partly allowed with regard to applicant nos.4 and 5, Puja and Meenu and the entire criminal proceedings of the aforementioned case in respect of applicant no.4, Puja and applicant no.5, Meenu are hereby quashed.

Order Date :- 13.4.2023

Shahroz/Vinod