Allahabad High Court
Rohit Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 July, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:146369
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24477 of 2023
Applicant :- Rohit Kumar And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhushan Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Shekhar Mishra
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the charge-sheet dated 19.09.2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 152 of 2022, summoning order dated 07.02.2023 and proceedings of Case No. 46 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. (Crime against Women), Saharanpur.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no. 1 is husband, applicant no. 2 is father-in-law and applicant no. 3 is mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 respectively. The marriage of applicant no. 1 with the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 25.01.2020 but on account of acrimonious relation and matrimonial dispute, opposite party no. 2 lodged F.I.R. on 18.07.2022 against the applicants making false and concocted allegations of demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- and her harassment. The investigating officer did not conduct fair investigation and submitted charge sheet dated 19.09.2022, on which, the learned court below took cognizance on 07.02.2023 and summoned the applicants. The allegations against the applicants are general in nature. Since the opposite party no. 2 was not inclined to live in her matrimonial home, therefore, she has made false allegations. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. No offence is made out against the applicants.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 refuting the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants submitted that upon perusal of F.I.R. and on the basis of the allegations made therein as well as material against the applicants, as per prosecution case, 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.
Having examined the matter in its totality, I find that that the grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of 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 an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is well 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 First Information Report or charge-sheet 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. 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.
At the stage of taking cognizance of the case and 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.
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.
The relief as sought by the applicants through the instant application is hereby refused.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.7.2023
Saurabh
