Sanjeev Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 22115 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:166077
 
Court No. - 90
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18950 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Agrawal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Mishra,Ashish Kumar Mishra,Shri Krishna Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

1. Heard Sri Anuj Agrawal holding brief of Sri Arvind Agrawa, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned summoning order dated 02.03.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.5, Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri, as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 06 of 2013 (Suresh Chandra Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 1.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Kishni, District- Mainpuri, pending before the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.5, Mainpuri.

3. Opposite party no. 2 has moved a complaint dated 04.01.2013 alleging therein that on 23.04.2000 he has solemnized the marriage of his daughter, namely, Vineeta with applicant no. 1, namely Sanjeev Kumar. At later stage, in-laws have started torture and cruelty with his daughter for demand of dowry. At some stage, he has fulfilled the demand, however, they have not stopped harassing her daughter for further demand of dowry. On 01.12.2012 they badly thrashed to the daughter of the complainant and with intention to kill her they locked her in a room. After receiving information from the neighbour, the complainant came at the in-laws house and bring his daughter with him. In support of the contents of the complaint, complainant has made his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Sarman Singh, Kamlesh Chandra and Vineeta have made their statement as P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 respectively under Section 202 Cr.P.C. After considering the averment made in the complaint and the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 5, Mainpuri has issued process against the present applicants (husband and mother-in-law) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 1.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act vide order dated 02.04.2013. Having been aggrieved against the summoning order dated 02.04.2013, present applicants have preferred instant application.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that false and malicious prosecution has been made on behalf of the complainant portraying false story just to exert pressure upon the present applicants. It is further submitted that no such incident took place, as mentioned in the complaint. It is further submitted that due to family discord both the parties have entered into compromise dated 19.12.2013 (Annexure No. 1),whereby present applicant no. 1 has promised to give half of his salary to his wife and till date he is throughout giving his half salary as per his promise. It is further submitted that at present there is no jurisdiction to keep the aforesaid proceeding continue against the present applicants, therefore, same may be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and contended that incident as shown in the complaint, corroborated by the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., are true wherein the daughter of the complainant (opposite party no. 2) has been tortured and harassed for the demand of dowry. It is further contended that the present applicants have deliberately filed this application at a very belated stage assailing the summoning order dated 02.04.2013 without assigning any cogent reason. Since passing of the order impugned dated 02.04.2013 throughout bailable warrants have been issued against the present applicants, however, at later stage non-bailable warrant has been issued in November, 2022. In the meantime, present applicants (accused) have deliberately ignored the court proceeding despite full knowledge. It is further contended that innocence of the present applicants at this stage cannot be inferred, which is subject matter of trial and can be adjudicated upon more appropriately by the trial court after going through the evidence to be adduced by the parties. It is further contended that the summoning order has rightly been passed after considering the material available on record and, accordingly, he has shown his satisfaction, prima facie, for the complicity of the present applicants in the commission of crime. It is next contended that no legal ground is made out to entertain the present application against the summoning order dated 02.04.2013, therefore, same is liable to be rejected being misconceived and devoid of merits.

6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it reveals that complaint was filed on 04.01.2013 and the process under Section 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act was issued vide order dated 02.04.2013. The order sheet appended to this application reveals that after issuance of process, throughout bailable warrant was issued against the present applicants and ultimately vide order dated 03.11.2023 non-bailable warrant was issued against them. In paragraph 14 of the affidavit it is averred that in the month of March, 2023 he came to know first time qua pendency of the present proceeding initiated on the basis of the complaint moved on behalf of opposite party no. 2. The plea as taken by applicants with respect to the lack of knowledge is appears to be doubtful in light of the alleged compromise took place between the parties on 19.12.2013, whereas the complaint has already been filed on 04.01.2013 and summons were already issued on 02.04.2013. Perusal of the order impugned reveals that it has been passed after considering the averment made in the complaint and statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of three witnesses, namely, P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 under Section 202 Cr.P.C., who had corroborated the incident as mentioned in the complaint. The incident as mentioned in the complaint, in light of the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., cannot be said to be false and, prima facie, complicity of the present applicant in the commission of cognizable offence cannot be ruled out. Defence as taken by the present applicants showing the compromise dated 19.12.2013 is the subsequent event to the summoning order dated 02.04.2013. However, even assuming that both the parties have entered into a compromise and there is no grudges against each other, present applicants have still an opportunity to move an appropriate application before the trial court to settle the dispute in light of the alleged compromise dated 09.12.2013, which has been pressed before this Court.

7. In this conspectus, as above, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere in the order dated 02.04.2013 at this belated stage in the year 2023 in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There is no illegality, perversity and irregularity in the order impugned dated 02.04.2013. Nothing has been demonstrated by the applicants with respect to the abuse of process of the Court or any ground compelling the Court to pass an order to secure the ends of justice. There is nothing on record to demonstrate as to how present applicant is prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to him, owing to the order impugned.

8. Resultantly, instant application, being misconceived and devoid on merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.

9. Before parting, learned counsel for the applicants submits that in all sections, as mentioned in the FIR, maximum punishment is seven years or less than 7 years, therefore, the bail application if filed by the present applicant may be considered in the light of the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 773. In the cited case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has given certain guidelines for deciding the bail applications by categorising the offences.

10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I think it appropriate that in case, the present applicants appear/surrender before the concerned court below and move bail application within two weeks, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, expeditiously as early as possible.

Order Date :- 17.8.2023

Pkb/