Allahabad High Court
Akshay Pratap Singh @ Aksh Pratap Singh ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 November, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176136
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42446 of 2023
Applicant :- Akshay Pratap Singh @ Aksh Pratap Singh And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Hasan Parvej
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Mishra,G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Mr. Hasan Parvej, learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1, Mr. Amit Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the charge-sheet dated 22.10.2022, cognizance/summoning order dated 06.04.2023 and proceedings of Case No. 2523 of 2023 (State Vs. Akshay and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 765 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.
Brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that applicant, who are four in number, are husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of opposite party no. 3 respectively. The marriage of applicant no. 1 was solemnized with opposite party no. 3 on 18.02.2022 but on account of acrimonious relation, their marriage was not successful, as a result thereof, opposite party no. 3 lodged first information report on 02.09.2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants making allegation inter alia that in the marriage, her parents had given sufficient dowry and household articles but she was being harassed and tortured in her matrimonial home by the accused persons.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the father of opposite party no.3 is a Head Constable, therefore, applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. During investigation, investigating officer did not interrogate any independent persons and submitted the charge-sheet in hurry. Referring the order dated 16.01.2023 of the Circle Officer-third, Bareilly, it is submitted that on the request of applicant no.1, investigation was transferred to other investigating officer. All the allegations are false, hence no offence is made out against the applicants. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order and criminal proceedings against the applicants are liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and learned counsel for 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. It is also pointed out that vide order of this Court dated 12.12.2023, matter was referred to Mediation Centre, but the applicants despite having knowledge did not appear before the Mediation Centre to make settlement. Hence, this application is liable to be dismissed.
Having examined the matter in its totality, I find that it is admitted fact that the applicants did not participate in mediation. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view 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.
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 :- 11.11.2024
Shubham
