Sonu vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 4132 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 736 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Sonu
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Priya Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Upendra Kumar Pushkar
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Heard Shri Anand Priya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Upendra Kumar Pushkar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

By means of the present 482 application the applicant is challenging the legality and validity of entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.2456 of 2022 (Kajal vs. Sonu and another) as well as summoning order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.01, Aligarh u/s 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Janva, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.01, Aligarh.

Pursuant to earlier order of this Court dated 10.01.2023, opposite party no.2- Ms. Kajal and the applicant- Sonu, both are present in the Court and they have been duly identified by their respective counsels.

The Court has occasion to have conversation with both the parties i.e. Ms. Kajal and Sonu. During conversation, Ms. Kajal has admitted that she got married with Sonu and their marriage was got registered in the office of Marriage Registration Officer, Ghaziabad, who has issued a certificate of registration of their marriage on 17.2.2022, annexed as Annexure-6 to the petition. From this document, the Court can easily come to the conclusion that the inter-se relationship between the applicant and opposite party no.2 as husband and wife is continuing since 17.2.2021. It seems that subsequently after the marriage, there was deep rooted discord and misunderstanding between the husband and wife. Ms. Kajal has unequivocally stated before the Court that she does not want to carry the burden of this marriage relationship with the applicant Sonu any more. She also stated that she wants to dissolve this nuptial knot, and for this purpose she has a better remedy to invoke the proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act.

I have perused the complaint lodged by the opposite party no.2 Ms. Kajal, which is full of venom and canards. By filing the said complaint, she wants to achieve her objective any how. The allegations fastened against the husband Sonu branding him like a road-romeo or a ruffian, but there is no whisper in the entire complaint that both of them are husband and wife. The Court can easily assess the undercurrent of her complaint which is instituted with sheer mala fides. The allegations fastened against the applicant are out of grudge, frustration and ulterior motive. Initially she has refused to accept the applicant as her husband but when the marriage certificate (Annexure-6) is shown to her, then only she came into her true colour that she wants to get rid-of from this relationship and thus concealing this relationship, this tailored story was crafted to achieve the target. As mentioned above, she has a better remedy to get the marriage dissolve.

In a recent judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC online SC 315 while referring to the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or FIR. In the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus :

"7.3 Then comes the celebrated decision of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). In the said decision, this Court considered in detail the scope of the High Court powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR and referred to several judicial precedents and held that the High Court should not embark upon an inquiry into the merits and demerits of the allegations and quash the proceedings without allowing the investigating agency to complete its task. At the same time, this Court identified the following cases in which FIR/complaint can be quashed:

"102.(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

From the aforesaid case law it is clear that the cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive out of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed.

From the discussion made above, when the complainant concealing the material fact has tailored a frivolous story against the applicant, thus, it could be well assessed that she has some nefarious motive to be achieved by the instant complaint case, thus deserves to be quashed.

After taking the guidance of case law referred to herein above and adhering to the guidelines established therein, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has come to the conclusion that the instant complaint is instituted against the applicant with ulterior motive and the allegations made therein appear to be malicious, just to harass him. Therefore, continuation of the impugned proceeding is likely to result in nothing except abuse of court's process and the same deserves to be reduced to zero.

Under these circumstances, I do not find any good reason to proceed with the complaint case, therefore, the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.2456 of 2022 (Kajal vs. Sonu and another) as well as summoning order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.01, Aligarh u/s 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Janva, District Aligarh, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.01, Aligarh are hereby quashed.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly ALLOWED.

Order Date :- 9.2.2023

M. Kumar