Allahabad High Court
Yukteshwar Aditya Singh Parihar Alias ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 February, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20469
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30169 of 2024
Applicant :- Yukteshwar Aditya Singh Parihar Alias Yogi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajatshatru Pandey,G.A.
And
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29711 of 2024
Applicant :- Naresh Singh Parihar And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Vikram Yadav,Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ajatshatru Pandey,G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ajay Vikram Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ajatshatru Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Deepak Kapoor, learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. applications have been filed to quash the Charge sheet No.91/2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 03.05.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6180 of 2024 (State vs. Yukteshwar Aditya Singh Parihar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.63 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Bareilly, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.
3. On 26.11.2024, the following order was passed in the matter:-
"Mr. Ajatshatru Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is present.
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, requests to pass over the case for today.
Accordingly, put up as fresh on 09.01.2025 along with connected matters.
It is made clear that no interim order has been granted. Pendency of this application will not come in the way of the Court to proceed in accordance with law.
Registrar (Compliance) shall communicate this order to the concerned Court for necessary information and compliance."
4. Again on 9.1.2025, the following order was passed in the matter:-
"Heard Mr. Ajay Vikram Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ajatshatru Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the Charge sheet No.91/2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 03.05.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.6180 of 2024 (State vs. Yukteshwar Aditya and others), arising out of Case Crime No.63 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Bareilly, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with applicant-Yukteshwar Aditya Singh Parihar Alias Yogi on 12.12.2019. From the version of FIR itself it is clear that the couple left for Bangalore at their work place on 03.01.2020 and the opposite party no.2 left for her parents' place on 15.02.2022. He further submits that some differences arose between the two and when understanding could not be develop, a divorce petition was filed by the husband on 10.08.2022. After coming to know about the aforesaid divorce petition, the present FIR has been lodged on 11.02.2023 in order to exert pressure upon the applicants. He further submits that there are general allegations against in-laws. Even otherwise, it is the admitted case of the opposite party No. 2 that she had gone to stay with the husband at his work place in Bangalore on 03.01.2020, therefore, the allegations leveled against the in-laws are false. He further submits that the matter may be mediated by this Court as there are chances of amicably settlement between the parties.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the applicants are avoiding facing the court on several occasions, i.e. while filing the writ petition and transfer application, the matter was referred to mediation centre, but due to various reasons, the parties could not arrive at any settlement and mediation proceedings were dropped. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also referred to the order passed by the Apex Court wherein the divorce petition as filed by the husband has been transferred from Satna to Bareilly. Though he does not give his consent to the request as made by the counsel for the applicants, but on observation of the Court that one opportunity should be given to the parties to amicably settle the dispute, he requests that this Court mediated the matter.
On the request of learned counsel for the parties, applicant-Yukteshwar Aditya Singh Parihar Alias Yogi (husband) and opposite party no.2-Smt. Kinshilf Chauhan @ Yashoghara are directed to appear before this Court on the next date fixed, i.e. 06.02.2025.
Put up this case, as fresh, on 06.02.2025, at 02:00 p.m. in Chamber alongwith connected matter.
Learned counsel for the parties shall ensure the presence of their respective parties on the next date fixed.
Till 06.02.2025, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."
5. On 6.2.2025, the following order was passed in the matter:-
"Heard Mr. D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sarfaraj Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ajatshatru Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A.-I and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State.
In compliance of order dated 09.01.2025, applicant-Yukteshwar Aditya Singh Parihar @ Yogi (husband) along with his father Naresh Singh Parihar is present before this Court and has been identified by his counsel.
The opposite party no.2 Smt. Kinashif Chauhan @ Yashoghara is also present along with her parents namely, S.P.S. Chauhan-father, Gargi Chauhan-mother and Subhmanyu Chauhan-brother and she has been identified by her counsel.
The Court mediated the matter between the parties in presence of Mr. D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sarfaraj Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ajatshatru Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA-I and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State, conducting joint and separate sessions. The applicant Yukteshwar Aditya Singh Parihar @ Yogi is not ready to take his wife along with him as expressed by him, therefore, there is no chance of settlement between the parties. The opposite party no.2 wants to go along with her husband but after having some conversation, both of them did not find any chance of their staying together happily.
Learned counsel for the applicants was asked to argue the matter on merits as there being no chance of mediation. Mr. D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, is not in a position to argue the case on merits and requests for time to argue the matter.
As prayed, put up as fresh on 13.02.2025 along with connected matter.
The interim order granted earlier stands discharged as the same was granted for the purpose of mediation.
The matter will not be adjourned on any ground on the next date fixed."
6. Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. has been lodged on 11.02.2023 at 20:00 hours under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants, who are husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the informant with the allegation that marriage of the informant was solemnized with applicant no.1, Yukteshwar Aditya Singh Parihar @ Yogi on 12.12.2019 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals at Jai Mahal Palace, Rajasthan. The informant's parents spent approximately Rs. 4 crore 15 lakh on the wedding, which included Rs 53 lakh in cash, jewellery worth Rs. 1 crore 65 lakh, insurance bonds worth Rs. 10 lakh, gold bonds worth Rs. 25 lakh, Rs. 12 lakh in P.P.F account, household items worth Rs. 25 lakh and Rs. 15 lakh on other things. On the insistence of her in-laws, the marriage took place at Jai Mahal Palace Hotel, which cost Rs. 1 crore and 10 lakhs. Husband of the informant was working as Product Manager in Target Company at Banglore. After the marriage, on 03.01.2020 the informant alongwith her husband reached Bangalore and after 4 days her mother-in-law, namely, Kusum Parihar also reached there.There, informant?s husband used to beat her after drinking liquor and demanded Audi car and share in her parents? business as additional dowry.
7. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that after some time, informant's husband brought her to Satna, M.P. and there they started demanding the same from her. When the informant denied to fulfill their demands, the accused told her that they would cut her finger, gauge her eyes and make her death look like an accident. They also told her that after her death they will get one crore rupees from the insurance and her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law used to beat her and say that she should bring the insurance bonds, PPF account passbook, cheque book, passport and educational certificates from her parent?s house. The informant became upset with this and told her parents about additional demand of dowry and brought the insurance bonds, PPF account passbook, cheque book, passport and educational certificates from her parent?s house to her in-laws house. On 06.02.2022, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law unanimously started demanding an Audi car and a share in her parents' business as additional dowry. When the informant told them that she will not fulfill their additional demand of dowry, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law started abusing her and asked her that if she did not bring dowry they would kill her. They all beat her, even did not give her water to drink and did not give her food to eat. After beating her they locked her in the room in an injured condition. Her father-in-law used to try to enter the room at night after consuming liquor. They used to abuse her badly, then the informant called on her father?s mobile number on 14.02.2022 and told him all the incident. On 15.02.2022 her father SPS Chauhan, uncle Virendra Chauhan, Dhirendra Chauhan, brother Mohit, came to her in-laws' house in Satna and when they tried to convince her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law, her in-laws started abusing them. Her mother-in-law Kusum Parihar came with a gun and started threatening her saying that they will keep her only if they give an Audi car and a share in their business as dowry, if the dowry demand is not fulfilled, then they will kill her. Then the informant was brought back to her maternal home in Bareilly with her father, uncle and brother, since then she is in her maternal home.
8. After investigation, charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted on 19.04.2024 against the applicants under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, upon which cognizance was taken and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly has summoned the applicants vide order dated 03.05.2024 to face trial.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the F.I.R. against the applicants has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations and no specific incident has been mentioned in the F.I.R. regarding harassment, raising demand of additional dowry. He further submits that as the conduct of opposite party no.2 was not proper, therefore, a divorce petition was filed on 10.08.2022 by applicant Yukteshwar Aditya Singh Parihar Alias Yogi on 10.08.2022 after which the present F.I.R. has been lodged on 11.02.2023 as a counter blast to wreck vengeance in order to exert pressure upon the applicants, therefore, this is a case of malicious prosecution.
10. Relying upon a judgement of Apex Court in the case of Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and another; 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 343 learned counsel for the applicants next submits that from plain reading of the F.I.R. and the statements of charge-sheet witnesses, the allegations as levelled by opposite party no.2 are quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. He also submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged after nearly 6 months of filing of the divorce petition. Thus, the first informant remained silent for nearly six month after the divorce petition was filed. With such an unexplained delay in filing the F.I.R., he submits that the same was filed only to harass the applicants. He also submits that there are general and vague allegations against the applicants and matter could have been sorted out as the relationship between opposite party no.2 and her husband have become estrange due to minor differences. Several other submission have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length.
11. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State on the other hand submit that from the version of the F.I.R. as well as statements of the charge-sheet witnesses details of the incident have been mentioned wherein the opposite party no.2 has been harassed for demand of additional dowry. As regard to the contention of counsel for the applicant for lodging the F.I.R. after filing of divorce petition, they submit that opposite party no.2 after having knowledge of filing of divorce petition, approached the Apex Court by means of filing of Transfer Petition (S) (Civil) No.1710 of 2023, wherein notices on 24.07.2023 were issued and final order has been passed on 17.01.2024 alongwith transfer application. Thus, it cannot be said that opposite party no.2 had knowledge of filing of divorce petition after which the present F.I.R. has been lodged and the divorce petition itself indicates the intention of the applicants as they never wanted to keep the opposite party no.2 with them. After having knowledge of the divorce petition, the transfer petition was filed, thus it cannot be presumed that filing of divorce petition was in the knowledge of opposite party no.2 which also cannot be shown from the order-sheet of the aforesaid case.
12. The judgment as relied by the counsel for the applicants is not applicable in the facts of the present case as the allegations against the applicants are specific, detailing about demand of additional dowry. The absence of medical report does not mean that opposite party no.2 was not beaten as it cannot be said that opposite party no.2 had definitely sustained any injury if she was simply beaten. The allegations of not giving food to opposite party no.2, locking her in a room, using abusive language to her and harassing her have been specifically specified in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of the charge-sheet witnesses. The fact that divorce petition was filed on 10.08.2022 after the opposite party no.2 had left her in-laws house on 15.02.2022 without making any effort to bring her back as well as the fact that in the mediation proceedings as conducted before this Court no agreement could be arrived between the parties and non appearance of the applicants despite notices being issued by the Apex Court go to show the conduct of applicants in which the life of opposite party no.2 has been ruined.
13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
14. In view of above, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the present matter. As per the allegations made in the F.I.R. as well as the statements made by witnesses of the charge sheet, it is crystal clear that soon after the marriage the all the in-laws including the husband of the informant were demanding additional demand of dowry and on account of non fulfillment thereof she was subjected to cruelty and mental agony for non fulfillment of additional dowry. Moreover, earlier in the writ proceedings the applicants did not appear before the Mediation Centre to arrive at an amicable settlement, which shows that they are not willing to settle the matter and the informant has been sent to vagrancy. The submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:-
(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866,
(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335,
(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,
(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122,
(v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682,
(vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454,
(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45,
(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143 and lastly
(ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315.
15. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
16. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet No. 91/2024 dated 19.04.2024 and cognizance/ summoning order dated 03.05.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.
17. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 13.2.2025
Abhishek Singh
