Allahabad High Court
Yogesh @ Prashant Sharma And 2 ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 August, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163335
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26995 of 2023
Applicant :- Yogesh @ Prashant Sharma And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
1-Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 and perused the record.
2-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the judgement and order dated 31.03.2023 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Agra in Criminal Revision No. 832 of 2022 (Yogesh @ Prashant Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and another), summoning order dated 15.11.2022, and proceedings of Complaint Case No. 6548 of 2020 (Astha Mishra @ Diksha Mishra Vs. Yogesh @ Prashant Sharma and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 312, 313, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Etmaddaula, District-Agra, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.8, Agra.
3-Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the opposite party no.2, who is wife of applicant no.1, moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 19.10.2020 against the applicants for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 312, 313, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act alleging inter alia that her marriage with applicant no.1 was solemnized on 19.04.2019 in which her father had spent about Rs. 12 lakh and also given ornaments and household articles to her in-laws, but there was consistent demand of a car and Rs. 2 lakh. On non-fulfillment of their demands, the accused persons started torturing and harassing her. When she became pregnant, she was forced to get her foetus aborted. On making resistance, she was badly beaten. On 27.12.2019, her husband assaulted her by kicks in her stomach, whereby, she received injuries and she started bleeding. Thereafter, on 14.01.2020, her foetus has been aborted. The said application was treated as complaint vide order dated 18.11.2020 and the applicants have been summoned to face the trial. Against the said summoning order, applicants have preferred a Criminal Revisions No. 832 of 2022, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2023. Both the above, orders dated 15.11.2022 and 31.03.2023 are the subject matter of challenge in the present application.
4-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C./complaint has been moved by the opposite party no.2 on the false and concocted allegations. The Revisional Court has illegally rejected the Criminal Revision of the applicants vide order dated 31.03.2023. Applicant no.1 has filed an application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce before the Principal Judge, Family Court on 22.09.2020. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that no offence is made out against the applicants. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, both the impugned orders and criminal proceedings against the applicants are liable to be quashed by this Court.
5-Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State refuting the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants submitted that considering the allegations made in the complaint as well as statement of the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC respectively, the cognizable offence against the applicants is made out. The criminal proceedings against the applicants cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. Hence this application is liable to be dismissed.
6-After having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record, I find that apart from this case, proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and proceeding under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act initiated by opposite party no.2 are also pending. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. At the stage of summoning the accused, the court below is not required to go into the merit and demerit of the case. Genuineness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be even determined at the stage of summoning the accused.
7-This Court is of the view that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put to an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in complaint and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. Power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in court of law. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage, which can be more appropriately gone into by the trial court at the appropriate stage. The applicants have an alternative statutory remedy of moving discharge application at the appropriate stage.
8-This Court does not find that this case fall in a categories as recognized by the Apex Court for quashing the criminal proceeding of the trial court at pre-trial stage. Considering the facts, circumstances and nature of allegations against the applicants in this case, the cognizable offence is made out. At this stage it would not be appropriate to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. The impugned criminal proceeding under the facts of this case cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court.
9-The relief as sought by the applicants through the instant application is hereby refused.
10-This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.8.2023
Kashifa
