Allahabad High Court
Abhishek And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 January, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4337
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36112 of 2024
Applicant :- Abhishek And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Prakash Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Manoj Pandey, leaned Advocate holding brief of Sri Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mayank Awasthi, learned Brief Holder for the State, Sri Manoj Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants challenging charge sheet dated 31.01.2024 and cognizance order dated 12.02.2024 and proceedings of Case No. 8412 of 2024 (CNR No. UPMO04011254-2024) State v. Abhishek and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 378 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC and under Sections 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Pakbada, District Moradabad pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2, Moradabad.
3. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged by opposite party no. 2 ? Mahendi Devi on 28.11.2023 at 13:55 hrs. bearing Case Crime No. 378 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, against six persons who are the applicants herein with the allegation that marriage of daughter of opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with Abhishek ? applicant no. 1 on 08.12.2021 according to Hindu rites and rituals. About Rs. 15 Lakh were spent in the aforesaid marriage. Out of the wedlock, a girl child was born on 03.02.2023. The applicant mentally and physically tortured daughter of opposite party no.2 raising additional dowry demand. On 29.09.2023 when son of O.P. No. 2, namely, Jay Kishan had gone to place of the applicants for vidai of his sister Anita, he saw all the applicants assaulting his sister. He was also pushed and forced to leave the house. The O.P. No. 2 moved an application on 03.10.2023 before the S.S.P., Moradabad whereafter on 20.10.2023 compromise took place in Mahila Thana, Moradabad and Abhishek took Anita along with him. Despite the said compromise in Mahila Thana, Moradabad, the applicants did not change their conduct and demanded one car and five lakh rupees and also assaulted daughter of O.P. No. 2 for the same. On 27.11.2023 Anita called her brother informing him on telephone that husband Abhishek, father-in-law Pan Singh, mother-in-law Neelam, Nanad Rakhi and father of Jethani Ram Awtar all badly beaten her. They also threatened her for burning her to death. She locked herself in the house. On receiving the aforesaid information, brother Jay Kishan reached the place of her in-laws, he was also abused and beaten by all the applicants and neighbours managed to save him and Anita. They with great difficulty managed to leave the house and the present FIR was lodged. After investigation chargesheet has been submitted against the applicants under the relevant sections.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present case has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations. It is highly improbable that father of jethani would raise any dowry demand and assault the daughter of O.P. No. 2 for the same. No such dowry demand was made by any of the applicants. Omnibus, general, vague and bald allegations have been levelled against all the applicants. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate falsity of the allegations made against them. Allegations as levelled against the applicants are false hence the proceedings may be quashed.
5. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that from the version of FIR as well as statements of chargesheet witnesses as well as of the victim Anita, it is clear that she was abused, mentally and physically tortured and badly beaten by all the applicants, due to which she sustained injuries. The medical report as annexed at Page-35 of the petition shows that she sustained three injuries and injury no. 2 is grievous in nature. It is next contended that there are specific allegations against all the applicants. He further submits that all the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. On the basis of material on record after conducting of statutory investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the commission of the alleged incident.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
7. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' 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 applicant and trial is yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant 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, and laslty
(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143.
8. 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.
9. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 31.01.2024 and cognizance order dated 12.02.2024 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.
10. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 8.1.2025
DS
