Allahabad High Court
Ritu Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78330
Court No. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14094 of 2024
Applicant :- Ritu Chaudhary
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing summoning order dated 08-04-2014 as well as entire proceedings of complaint case no. 1618 of 2024, under Sections 323, 388, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Bulandshahr.
3. The applicant had initially filed a complaint against the opposite party no.2 on 19-02-2024 alleging therein that on the pretext of marriage, the opposite party no.2 had sexually harassed her. Though she was a married woman and on his assurance she had divorced her husband and thereafter the opposite party no.2 had refused to marry her. An application was filed before the Senior Superintendent of Police in which the opposite party no.2 was called upon and in the police station he assured to marry with the applicant. Instead of marriage, the opposite party no.2 has filed the present complaint on the ground that the applicant is illegally demanding Rs. 20 lacs from him. The court concerned after recording the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. summoned the applicant on 15-03-2024, which is imugned in the instant application. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the present proceedings is a counter blast and malicious prosecution and the summoning order is passed without application of mind.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the applicant was already married and she claims to be divorcee to get a job with the opposite party no.2. She had been illegally extracting money from the opposite party no.2. She started pressurizing the applicant to marry her and in case he denies, she will implicate him in the case of rape. From bare perusal of the complaint, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
5. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines under which circumstances the Court should, in its inherent power, entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The guidelines are as follows:-
"(i) 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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."
7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicant. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.
9. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.5.2024
pks
