Allahabad High Court
Ajendra Pratap Singh And 2 Others vs State Of Upand Another on 12 November, 2024
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176992
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22279 of 2024
Applicant :- Ajendra Pratap Singh And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of Upand Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Tewari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pawan Kumar Shukla,Shreya Shukla
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 07.06.2024, of Complaint Case No. 14393 of 2024, under Sections - 494, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station - Majhola, District - Moradabad, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District - Moradabad.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that impugned complaint has been filed making false and baseless allegations. The applicant no.1 is husband of opposite party no.2. The allegation that on 17.04.2021 applicant no.1 has re-married with one Swati is wholly false. The alleged witnesses examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C. are interested witness and their statements are not reliable. It is further submitted that in fact on 17.04.2021, applicant no.1 was present at Basti at the place of his posting and thus, it is not probable that he might have performed second marriage at Moradabad. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no case is made out against applicants.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the application and submitted that applicant no.1 is husband of opposite party no.2 and without any divorce from her, on 17.04.2021 he has performed second marriage with one Swati. Learned counsel has referred statements of P.W.-2 Ravi Kumar, P.W.-3 Rampal Singh, P.W.-4 Mohd. Nafees, who stated that they have attended the alleged marriage function and 'saptpadi' has also taken place between applicant no.1 and alleged Swati.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if 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, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
7. In the instant matter, it is not disputed that applicant no.1 is husband of opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 has filed complaint against applicants alleging that she was harassed by him on account of dowry and she has two children, who are living with her. On 17.04.2021, her husband/applicant no.1, who is working as medical representative, has performed second marriage with one Swati, without obtaining divorce from complainant. This version is supported by three witnesses, namely, Ravi Kumar, Rampal Singh and Mohd. Nafees, who have been examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C. They have stated that marriage of applicant no.1 was performed with said Swati and 'saptpadi' has also taken place. In view of allegations made in the complaint and statements of witnesses, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against applicants. The submissions raised by learned counsel for applicants call for determination on questions of fact, which may adequately be discerned/adjudicated only by the trial court. Even the submissions made on point of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court. In view of material on record, no case for quashing of proceedings is made out. Hence, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.
8. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.11.2024
S Rawat
