Dablu Kumar @ Pradeep And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 14975 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Dablu Kumar @ Pradeep And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 May, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78197
 
Court No. - 91
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8857 of 2016
 

 
Applicant :- Dablu Kumar @ Pradeep And 5 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Basant Kumar Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhiraj Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri B.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned A.G.A. appearing for State-O.P. no.1 and Sri Anubhav Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dhiraj Singh, learned counsel for O.P. no.2.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1672 of 2011 (Shashi Kala vs. Pradeep and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ballia and also order dated 27.02.20216 passed by C.J.M., Ballia whereby application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicants has been rejected and summons have been issued against the applicants.

3. In the instant matter, marriage of O.P. no.2 was solemnized with applicant no.1 on 29.10.2007. Due to matrimonial discord, O.P. no.2 lodged complaint against her husband and relatives of her husband, i.e. present applicants, on 22.07.2011. In the complaint, it was alleged that the applicants were demanding dowry from O.P. no.2. However, apart from her husband, O.P. no.2 has implicated applicant no.1's maternal aunt (mami), younger married sister, nephew (bhanja), niece (bhanji) and maternal uncle (mama), who are applicant nos.2 to 6 respectively. After completion of enquiry and recording of statements of complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the applicants had moved an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, which has been rejected by the concerned court vide order dated 27.02.2016 and summons have been issued against the applicants. The said order is under challenge in the instant application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations levelled in the complaint are general in nature. He further submits that applicant nos.2 to 6 were not even residing with applicant no.1, rather they were in Bihar and they have been falsely implicated in the complaint case. So far as applicant nos.2 to 6 are concerned, the allegations made in the complaint against them are general in nature. He further submits that the entire family members of applicant no.1 have been roped in just to put undue pressure. Hence, the instant proceeding is nothing else but pure abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance upon a judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2012 (10) SCC 741.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for O.P. no.2 submit that the allegations made in the complaint against the applicants are correct and admittedly, there was dowry demand by the applicants. The averments made in the complaint has been fully corroborated by the statements of complainant and witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. There is no illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.

6. Heard rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and perused the record.

7. A bare perusal of the complaint and the evidence filed along with the application shows that O.P. no.2 had filed a complaint wherein she had implicated the entire family members of her husband (applicant no.1) and even those, who were staying in Bihar and even the younger sister of applicant no.1 (applicant no.3), who is married and staying separately, to be more precise, at her matrimonial home. It is a clear case of putting undue pressure on the husband by implicating his entire family members. Further perusal of the complaint as well as statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. reveals that a prima facie case is made out against the applicant no.1, who is the husband of O.P. no.2.

8. Accordingly, the instant application qua applicant no.1 (husband) is dismissed.

9. However, upon careful consideration, this Court finds merit in the submissions made with regard to applicant nos.2 to 6. The allegations levelled against them are vague and general in nature. The complaint fails to provide specific instances or incidents that applicant no.2 to 6 were directly involved in any wrongdoing. Even in the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., no specific allegation has been made against applicant nos.2 to 6.

10. In the judgement passed in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere casual reference of the names of family members in a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations of active involvement in the matter, does not justify taking cognizance against them. This observation aligns with the present case, where, the applicant nos.2 to 6 are family members of husband of the complainant, who have been implicated in the proceedings without any substantive allegations against them. The court emphasized that there is habit to involve the entire family members of the household in domestic quarrels arising from matrimonial disputes.

11. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases has reiterated the importance of preventing the abuse of the legal and judicial process in matrimonial disputes. The court emphasized that if the FIR fails to disclose specific allegations against the family members of husband, especially in matters of matrimonial bickering, it would be an abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically subject the named accused to trial. This principle is applicable to the present case, where the allegations against the applicant are vague and general in nature, lacking specific instances of wrongdoing. By quashing the criminal proceedings against the applicants, the court ensures that the legal process is not misused to harass individuals based on unsubstantiated accusations, thus upholding the principles of justice and fairness.

12. However, so far as the general allegations are concerned, the law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:-

"19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.

21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law."

13. It is to be seen that the general and vague allegation in respect of a matrimonial dispute against in-laws is indicative of the fact that the allegations are founded in order to enhance the gravity of the offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam's case (supra) has quashed a matrimonial dispute due to the vague nature of allegations against the in-laws. It is evident that the same rationale applies in the present case. The Court has reiterated that relatives of the husband cannot be compelled to undergo trial without specific allegations of dowry demand and emphasized the need to discourage criminal trials that lack specific charges.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184, has held that mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the 'be all and end all' of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498-A IPC. Therefore, considering the vague and general nature of the allegations against the applicants, and in accordance with the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, this Court deems it fit to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant.

15. As per the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme court, it becomes imperative to assess the nature of the allegations levelled against applicant nos. 2 to 6. The observations made in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, 2010 (7) SCC 667, highlight the common tendency to implicate not only the husband but also his immediate relations in complaints filed under Section 498-A IPC. However, it is essential for the courts to exercise careful scrutiny and consider pragmatic realities while dealing with such complaints, especially concerning allegations against distant relatives who may have had minimal or no involvement in the events alleged.

16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present application qua applicant nos.2 to 6 is hereby allowed and the proceedings of Complaint Case No.1672 of 2011(Shashi Kala Vs. Pradeep and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ballia pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia, so far it relates to applicant nos.2 to 6, are hereby quashed.

Order date:-1.5.2024

Manish Himwan